The relevant game: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8098

I had already expected them earlier due to login times and their game histories. I asked and they both said they were friends in real life and wouldn't necessarily keep on as allies. Then I received the following messages from Russia:

03:41 PM Hey France. Would you like to Ally with me? I will move my army from pie so its not threatening you and we will have Pie a DMZ and a cease-fire between us. We will then get rid of Italy, Germany, Turkey, and England all the weak countries. Then we will team up against russia and take the draw between us. What do you say?
03:42 PM oopsie i meant austria. Im russia.


Certainly it would be possible to put the wrong country as the one we would eliminate together, that happens. But the army in Piedmont was controlled by Austria, not by Russia - not a mistake that one would make.

I make mistakes like that all the time, cuz I'm a metagamer

the question is, in the end, which account will the points go to? do people like this have one account that they favor, and another that they neglect? wouldn't that hurt the neglected account's feelings?

No. Not a mistake one would make. Unless that person was clicking the buttons at the top saying they had a message and it was their turn and they quickly looked and forgot who they were. Sure im not Austria in any game so why would i make that mistake. Idk, but i did. Too late to unsend it. I looked at Austria and i thought it was me. I saw a possible alliance with Austria and France so I asked. But it turns out I was Russia and not Austria. Oh well. Ban me and my friend. But for people who dont have enough real life friends to play the board game with (and not owning the board game) youd be ruining it for us. Isnt this game about having fun. If a mod tells us we cant play together then screw it. That was the point of coming on here...to play the same game together. We just started too so of course were going to ally. Were new to this we dont want to make enemies right away but we realize people are going to attack us so we are each others allies. Is there seriously something wrong with that

Czar, learn2paragraph

for one, sounds very hasty and coverup ish
for two, what's to stop you from making new accounts
for three, who would admit that they have no friends?

and you don't think that it would hurt the other account's feelings? pity.

S.P.A.O. he might have friends, just not friends who want to play diplomacy. Same goes for me and Risk. I own three different types of risk but none of my friends want to play it and neither do my family. So what is the point of having them. I like the game but im unfortuante enough to not be able to play them. So S.P.A.O. #3 isnt quite correct.

P.S. When did he ever say it wouldnt hurt the other accounts feelings. If he knows him in real life then hed understand and if he isnt a real friend then a mod will be hearing from him very shortly asking for unban.

P.S.S. What IS to stop him from making another account and multiaccounting again? Hmm....?

P.S.S.S. YOU try getting accused of multiaccounting and telling what happened and try to not make it sound hasty and coverup-ish. Seriously...

well, i actually have been accused of multiaccounting, though i did not have as much evidence against me.
Also, #4 was a joke, referencing a previous post
also direct quote "But for people who dont have enough real life friends to play the board game with..." - with apologetics for a possible misinterpretation.
So there.

:P

ok. Better. I forgive you. O and ive been accused of multiaccounting. Sucks when you have to give away your alliance so not to get banned. Now everyone is attacking us.

yes, i understand. solidarity.

Czar, going into the game with an agreed upon alliance with a friend is metagamaing and against the rules. You have just admitted to a flagrant violation of those rules. You should be banned at least for the metagaming.

I'll look into it for you

Srgt - do you know Czar in real life?

"Czar, going into the game with an agreed upon alliance with a friend is metagamaing and against the rules. You have just admitted to a flagrant violation of those rules. You should be banned at least for the metagaming."

Are you seriously saying it's against the rules to team up with people you know and trust?

No it's not- it is, however, frowned upon. Metagaming is a difficult thing to get rid of within the rules of diplomacy.

yes, IF BEFORE the game starts you and your friend decide to team up despite not knowing what countries you will get and what the other countries might offer you.
( variant games that use team based system are allowed to do this but)

I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says it is forbidden to ally/team up before a game. In fact, according the definition of a metagamer in the rules itself, this isn't even metagaming.

according to the definition*

Well not as applied here. Metagaming is taken to mean making an alliance for reasons not due to the game in question. This could be in return for a favour in another game, or it could be because you know them in real life. The trouble with alliances formed between friends before they enter the game is they are notoriously difficult to break, indeed often impossible.

please ban multiaccounters

Canaris, the rules of the game have nothing specifically about metagaming because they were written before the advent of the internet as a public medium. The generally accepted policies of this site do frown upon forming alliances before a game begins. I do hope anyone who does this gets banned as it is a bad practice to allow.

User 11268 is also suspicious in connection to them. User: Thisisn'tRISK. They seem to have simialr playing styles, only moving particular units and a unflinching cooperation and trust for one another, forming what appears to be (on one occasion) an unbreakable A/T/R triple alliance.

The rules posted on this website were written prior to the rise of the internet to mainstream media? Somehow I doubt that. Unless of course they came from the Diplomacy boardgame rulebook, and there are internet-exclusive terms used here, so I doubt that highly.

If they want to make it a bannable offense to have friends they should clearly make it obviously so in the rules on the website.

The problem, Canaris, is playing with Friends is fine. There is nothing wrong with playing with a friend. Unfortunatly, alot of people that play with friends enter unbreakable alliances with eachother, which is not fine. Playing with friends isn't banned because it is dealt with on a case by case basis. I find it hard to believe tho, that people can't understand that out of game cooperation like that is wrong.

Also, metagaming is almost always the defence employed by multi-accounters. Given that he accidently thought he was austria rather than russia makes me suspicious that it is only one person.

Can I make a suggestion to Mods.

Whilst Metagaming is difficult to break it is going to happen. Why do we not amend the rules to allow Metagaming BUT persons wishing to Metagame from 1901 should only join Password protected games and declare an interest with another player.

That way the person controlling the password can either accept or decline the joining.

If Metagaming is discovered in an ongoing game then Mods should be able to nullify the game and return all entry points to competitors. In that way no one loses out, including players who were out prior to the Metagamingbeing exposed.

Finally If someone joins an ongoing game with the purpose of metagaming (ie they are invited by a friend to ensure victory/draw) then they should be banned from the site as this is flagrant cheating and is almost as bas as multiaccounting.

I learnt the hard way not to trust someone just because they worked with you in another game.

@Draugnar
And I hope that people who give away centres in one game in order to receive them from the same player in another also get banned. Yes, you know what I'm talking about.

Metagaming as defined by
figlesquidge:
Metagaming is taken to mean making an alliance for reasons not due to the game in question.

should be banned as unethical and unfair to the players in the game as well as the participants in the long run.

Additional the negative should also be declared as unethical: the extension of a feud or an automatic attack because of something outside the game. Each game should be played on the basis of that game. However this is more difficult to deal with than the alliance structure problem since people will attack based on people's ranking and scoring in this community where there is an emphasis on that point structure that is outside of an individual game.

So you have a little problem here with the extension.