I don't... I don't even pay attention to who is in my games. I call them by their country names.

So, if you were in a game with a player you know alwyas stabs within the first year of an alliance, you wouldn't guard your back more than with a player who is known for making game long alliances? I highly doubt that, rlumley.

Draug is right.....

I am blessed/cursed with a very poor memory so even when I loath and detest what a player has done to me and secretly plan to hound him/her down and attack/stab them every game, I always forget who did what to me by the time I sign on again. It would really help if we could make notes on a player that appear when we hover over their names to allow people with bad memories to metagame.

To be fair, I did say we all do it to some extent, so we're all cheaters! :-P

Anyway, this is why I like anonymous games, not only to prevent others from metagaming (using factors/knowledge outside of a specific game, within a specific game), but to limit myelf from falling into that ever so tempting trap.

Think about the days of playing Diplomacy table-top. You weren't going to be in a room with 6 strangers playing the game. It's highly likely that you would be playing with people you knew at some level and had played with before. And with that, you would take their playing style into account when facing them. Why would an online version be any different?

@ Draugnar: I just told you: I don't pay attention to who I'm playing with.

@ rlumley: In a Sun Tzu sort of way, I would suggest that inattention to who you are facing is unwise. But hey, if it works for you, great.

@MadMarx - I don't think knowing your opponent constitutes "meta-gaming". In the "real world" where I used to play with my friends on a board, I knew my opponents, could read their facial expressions, could predict the back stab...clearly that was not cheating.

Additional thought -- Also, just because you think you know someone from one game does not mean they will play the same in another game. In league play, I am a *completely* different character than I will be in a Friday night live game with a vodka in my hand! lol Meta-gaming is more along the lines of "Let's be automatic allies next game", not "I think I might be able to trust him because of another game" Totally different.

Strat:

"Rules:

2. No Meta-gaming
You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game"

Strat, this reply is also in the other thread, let's take it there.

krellin, reading facial expressions is within a game. I get your point, but the rules state no meta-gaming so I make a conscious effort to honor that as much as possible, which I find easier to do in anon games.

I suggest it is damned near impossible to not make a decision based upon prior experience, and that does not constitute meta-gaming. If you have two equal offers of alliance, and one guy always back stabs you, and the other doesn't, are you honestly going to say you'll flip a coin to make the decision? If so, set up a game and let's play.

Anon games...without messaging is no longer "Diplomacy" in the truest sense. And with messaging, you can identify someone anyway if you want to by asking and/or telling.

I was about to say it doesn't work for rlumley, but he has 10 times the wins I do with fewer than twice the number of games. And yet, he is still at the base 100 while having a decent (better than mine) GR. I guess that proves that points are not indicative of skill...

i ll second that! i suck at this game!

@MM - the mods have stated they don't condier taking into account prior experience with a player to be against the rules. The rules were written to allow them some latitude when making decisions. I hope a mod looks in here and provides their view on whether considering prior experience is against the rules.

*consider

I agree with Krellin (eek), to me metagaming is only when you cooperate with another player in two games simultaneously.

Eeek? Did you see a mouse? Awwww...come on....I'm a belligerent ass sometimes on the threads....self-confessed troll if you will...but I'm not always. :P And, that being said (in keeping on topic) my game-face is a totally different me.

@Diplo - what is said cooperation ins two simultaneous games is just good strategy?

Actually, simultaneous cooperation in two different games (if a review of the communication proves to be "I'll scratch yours if you scratch mine") is a serious meta offense that can get you banned.

Perhaps it's not very fair, or wise, to let past perceptions of a player's "trustworthiness" at all interfere with your decisions. Just because a player was stab-happy in one game doesn't mean he would be that way in another. Even more dangerously, just because someone was a trustworthy ally in one game, doesn't mean he won't stab you in the next. I would imagine that many players try different playing styles between different games. As krellin was saying, the importance and context of a game (i.e. league vs casual live) can greatly influence the playing style that a player may choose to adopt. Also, even between different league games, a player may want to try different styles of play if he feels that a change could improve his chance of success.

On a different note, allowing past knowledge of a player's ability (i.e. tactical skill, communication skills, negotiation skills) to interfere with your decisions is a different thing.

@krellin - in an anon game with chat, I believe asking about someone's identity or revealing your own would be a rules violation.

The point is, if you know the players name, you will subconciously make decisions based on past history. It cannot be avoided. and in the early stages of the game, that knowledge and self awareness can help you make a wise decision in who to trust and how far to trust them.

I'll give you a for instance: I introduced Crazyter to this site. She is a "friend" through the judges. But I know that she will stab, and sometimes at the worng moment weaking both of us. So if I ally with her, I know to protect my borders and not push into the enemy as hard as if I ally with certain other players. My decision to ally or not is based on position and the game, but my decision of how far to trust that alliance is based on prior experience.

@ Draug -- if the cooperation is planned and expressly stated in two games, I understand. If it is just - hey, here we are again, I trust you from past experience and it would be mutually beneficial from a strategic standpoint to ally in this circumstance, that is not meta, is it?

@krellin, I'd have to say that would be probably more meta than not meta. certainly it would be frowned upon by the other players in the game.

If the cooperation isn't communicated and planned, just happens, then that is fine, but if there is sollusion (hey, you help me into Mos in Game A and I'll help you into Ber in Game B as a thanks), then that is metagaming and is against the rules. If you do the favor in game B, even as an unrequested thanks for game A or because you are concerned the other player will get revenge in game A, that is also metagaming. Each games moves should be independent of the other games.

*collusion