in this case, if the other party doesn't accept your proposal, and you continue as is. unless you think he's metagaming without even putting in the proposal? that would be too much

If he is threatening that, he is already metagaming.

He is attempting to influence one game by another. Threatening it is doing it.

I'd have to agree with DJ

By referencing another game, that is, by definition, meta gaming.

There are no site rules against it, no, but it's "frowned on", and the community as a whole doesn't like it:
http://phpdiplomacy.net/faq.php#faq25

Specifically, "someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one" is metagaming. Threatening someone in one game based on events in another game is the very definition of metagaming in the site FAQ.

It's frowned on. It's not banned, just frowned on. It's not cheating, and doesn't get you banned, I agree with yellowpajamasson in that it's a fairly low sin.

But if I'm in a game and another player gives a legit example of someone attempting to metagame, I'm thinking removing that player might go up my priority list, it doesn't do the game any good if a player is acting irrationally for their position within that game based on actions in another game.

Threatening to kill someone is not the same as actually killing someone. While both are punishable, they are not dealt with the same severity. I would say that many people who threaten to kill someone receive no consequences beyond a warning. Others receive a restraining order. Very few receive punishment and usually only if the threat has been repeated forcefully numerous times. If Ichtys made the threat but did not follow through with it at all, then there is not much to do about it. If it was followed through, then removing him from the games could be an option. However, who is to say that Ichtys's description of BESM's unusual attacking of his Turkey by BESM's England is not metagaming on BESM's part. Maybe BESM was thinking "Well, I've attacked him in one game and surely pissed him off. I might as well attack him in the other game also because he will surely hold a grudge against me and not ally with me." Isn't that metagaming? I don't see Ichtys crying to the community about this. From what I've seen written in this thread, I would much rather play with Ichtys than BESM. Other people are welcome to their own opinions.

@flashman

I also put a lot of thought into my games. But if I lost my job, I (and my family) would be devastated. If I couldn't play on this site any more, I would get over it and find other things to do with my spare time. I love the game and have played it since I was a kid, but it is just that -- a game. It's not like there is a professional diplomacy league where I can earn a living.

if i understand the original post correctly, BESM asked Icthys what can i do to make you stop killing me, onto which Icthys replied "let's metagame". unless BESM accepts, no metagaming crime has been commited. we can say whatever we want in a game, that doesn't mean we really mean it. it's diplomacy

...but i'd also like to stress that there are no official rules against metagaming

Just a point on attacking Turkey, I didn't even notice Mr; I was Turkey in both games untll he threatened me. I didn't attack him in the second game, as England, until I was there to do it as part of a Eng-Fre-Ger alliance for world dominance. In the first game, I'm Italy and I attacked him and then we stopped. I don't pay attention to one game when playing another. I just play them one at a time. Asfor the cross game threats, they are more serrious than some of you seem to take them. As for playing with Mr. I or me, that's obviuosly up to you. On the other hand, I'd rather play with those players who play the game, one at a time, without crossingg the line. There are enough of those to make for a full schedule, so I just hope that Mr. Y has a nice time.. I plan to avoid Mr. I if possible for the rest of my gaming life.

@yellowp..: that example is invalid. Killing someone is something different than threatening to kill someone.

However, there is no such thing as "threatening to meta-game". In the very moment you mention another game, you _are_ already meta-gaming.

@BESM, bearing in mind the two games you referred to initially are still running (I assume) are you meta-gaming by posting here and trying to get the player banned, and trying to 'name and shame' him in an attempt to gain symphony and help from others who may be in the game?

No, and not metagameing. Just explaining the circumstances of the attacks. by the way, mb is correct, the threat of metagaming is, by definition, metagaming. It's a bribe, a quid pro quo, it's an offer or threat, beyond the bounds of one game, to do something not already being done. The name and shame has nothing to do with sympathy. I expect the two games will end in draws since mr. I has screw up the dynamics of both. The act of the offer would be, in legal terms, offering a bribe which would be a fellony. I am confused by your seemingly casual view of what he did given that all one has in the game is reputation and ethics to go with actions. Cheating is cheating. Multigaming is multigamingg. If you are worried about keeping players like this, it's sad. I love the game. I play hard. I play reasonably well. I have fun doing it. Ask any of the players who have played against me. Ask any of them who have stabbed me or stomped me into oblivion or are doing so now. I play a game at a time.

The only way to truly eliminate metagaming is to play anonymously, but I don't think that would be very much fun.

If you think of diplomacy as a sport, then I think acceptable vs non-acceptable metagaming becomes clearer. Coaches are allowed to review other teams' past games, but you're not allowed to through a game for some reason.

@ alamothe

We are hearing mostly one side of the situation. It seems like a guilty until proven innocent situation for Ichtys. I am just advocating openmindedness. In the end, I think this is an example of why it is bad to play with the same person in two games at the same time, even if it is unintentional. It can just lead down a dangerous path. How can you stab/attack someone in one game and not expect it in another game?

@mb

I was saying that killing and threatening to kill are different.

It seems to me that experienced players can separate themselves from the emotions of a game better than inexperienced players. Otherwise, the tournament that is being run would be full of this situation. However, I have seen threads where participants have talked about ganging up on a player who has done well in previous league games. Isn't this metagaming in the sense that players have a predisposition to attack/kill a player before the game even begins based on the outcome of previous tournament games, even if you weren't involved in those previous games? Isn't this similar to the player with the most points being ganged up on in any regularly-played game?

Itchy is in one of our games and if he is being frowned upon by the community, I want out. I ropose we draw the games he is in if that kind of behavior is his normal game play.

"me??
What are you talking about xcurly? we have only played one game and it was a bloody GUNBOAT!

something to confess?"

Lol sean gunboats are hella hard for people with high points because naturally you figure they are the best and are going to attack everyone so you focus on them :P Its eadsy to play with supports and what not.

Real-world diplomacy would work differently based on the amount of contact you have with an individual/country. Let's say the US wants France's help with the war in Afghanistan and with the global economic crisis. The US would not want to anger the French government by demanding higher troop support and risk losing France's cooperation in both affairs. What I mean by this is if I were playing in two games with the same person, regardless of location on the board, I would be extra careful to not become an enemy in one game unless I felt secure enough in the other game. I'm not saying I would try to make two alliances. It's just that you have to be realistic. So many of these comments act like the situation is black and white. I say it is gray. When a player joins multiple games at a time, this is bound to happen sooner or later. Who really goes into a game containing one or more previous opponents with a totally blank slate? Show me someone who says yes and I'll show you a liar.

Icthys, as another mod. I'm going to tell you that you are in the wrong. I would consider cross-board gaming as perhaps the most blatant and strongest form of metagaming and definitely grounds for banning.

The reason it's set out that metagaming is just "frowned upon" is because metagaming is a gradient of offences and will not be dealt with boolean nature. Obviously I will not punish someone from remembering which players they prefer to ally with and which ones tend to stab them... In addition it's difficult to ascertain whether or not two people might be IRL friends and metagaming and could lead to false accusations... but if you are clearly cross-board gaming then I would definitely talk to the other mods about getting you banned. I won't for this time because there hasn't really been a precedent set so far and I would not punish you for your ignorance, but can you not see how unfair and wrong you are being? I can understand that you may have been peeved by BESM's apparent disrespect and minor count of metagaming, but this is no reason to vastly escalate the level of metagaming. Just file his name away, and let everyone in the game know how much of a dick BESM is. Verbal abusers often abuse more than one person and you can often find alliances that will work simply out of spite of the abuser.

alamothe, threatening to metagame is metagaming... once you bring in another board into the picture any further actions are seen in the light of this threat. It doesn't matter how BESM responds because Ichthys' actions can be seen in light of the metagame.

Why do you people need a rule to avoid doing something? It doesn't say in the FAQ that you can't talk in a gunboat game, but you sohludn't, I think everyone needs to operate on a general "don't be a douchebag" policy.

If you can't understand that, we sould just copy Chrispminis' post into the FAQ so it is written in stone, but a mod said it (who cares about the community at large, right?) so you should probably listen.

Also, Dingleberry Jones is correct, threatening meta-gaming IS meta-gaming. If you want a legal precedent, threatening assault IS assault so long as the victim reasonably believes it will be carried out.

Stop acting like children looking for loopholes in the rules and act like rational adults please.

Lol dummies, its all part of the game, while he got you all talking about this, ranting and raving, hes draining your attention while he tries to take over the site.


and loopholes in the rules are ok in my book, its kinda like lying, in the bible it says not to but most people do because there is a loophole about a enternal grace or something.

Chrisp, if i stab someone in one game, i can't expect them to remain a loyal ally in another, simply because it's not happening. should i complain about that to you too, so you would ban them?

if you want to come up with new offenses that would lead to a ban, you must make a dedicated page that would explain what is allowed and what isn't. whether it would contain something like "making a reference to another game in a private chat" is up to the admin and the mods. IMHO, we should never be banned for something we SAY in a private chat

...also i still believe metagaming didn't happen in this particular case, since BESM refused Icthys's offer to metagame

Cross board gaming is rampant in the leagues.

Comments?....

Alamothe, I've just finished two games on the FB app, both started at the same time by me, first player to join each was the same guy, we got Russia and France each.

Specifically when we realised we made sure to play each game separately, we ended up working together in each due to the actions of other players, but in one of the games he stabbed me horribly, in the other we forced a draw.

You have a very low opinion of the ability of players to actually play the game. I take each game separately and treat with each country as if it's separate, extra intel about likely reactions to moves is just an added bonus.

mapleleaf, I know that in my group at least metagaming is actively acknowledged and cross board gaming has been accepted. It was agreed that since it's the same players every time everyone has the opportunity for cross board diplomacy and it's just as non-binding as intra-board diplomacy. It made for some very interesting play.

alamothe, I would actually not expect them to stab me in one game simply because I stabbed them in another, especially not for the sake alone. That would be quite irrational. And yes, you can complain about them to me, and I will talk to them. That doesn't mean I will ban them or it will lead to anything, because they might have stabbed you for very good reasons...

In this case, it was plainly admitted that he was using it as a cross board bargaining chip. I said I wouldn't ban Ichthys, I'm just reprimanding him, and I didn't even say I would ban future cases, but I said I would consider it grounds for a bannable offense and definitely take it up with the other mods.

These are not new offences... we've always known that metagaming to be a potential problem. I was an early anti-metagaming advocate back when we didn't have authority figures such as mods. The general attitude on this site has been to let you guys do what you want and expect you to behave maturely and not be dicks to each other. I'm happy to say that it's worked out fantastically with a few small exceptions, this being one of them. There isn't any ten commandments written out because we haven't needed one except in a few small cases, and I think that such authoritarianism would wouldn't foster the right environment. That doesn't mean you can go around ruining the game experience for other players and expect no retribution.

If you haven't noticed, the majority of the active forum community seems to be against Ichthys and his metagaming and disagrees with you. I haven't taken any action besides reprimanding Ichthys because in most cases this is enough. Otherwise mods generally encourage players to enforce their own rules INSIDE the game. We've directed this response for racist and offensive remarks made in-game, and we expect that metagamers will usually be dealt with similarly.

In alamothe's defense, he has a point I think. Under the strict defenition of metagaming we're all guilty of it, whether it's carrying an opinion of a specific player from one game to another (I don't care how saintly you claim to be, your memory of their actions in previous games will effect you you interact with them in a current game, subconsciously if not consciously) or simply being cognizant of the points system and game type. Claiming Icthys is 'bad' because he's metagaming is hypocritical.

That said, most of us seem to have an intuitive belief that some types of metagaming are bad, not because they're necessarily against the spirit of the game (the official rules suggest blatant cheating, after all) but because it would be generally damaging to the enjoyment of the community as a whole. The problem is there's no clear rule (or syste of rules) on what constitutes 'unacceptable' metagaming (and it is doubtful we could find/agree on one). Lacking a clear, boolean test for acceptable metagaming we're left with several options:

1) Leave enforcement up to social pressure. Essentially this is what flashman suggested. If you think someone's behaved unacceptably avoid playing/working with them and tell others. If the community as a whole disagrees with how they behaved, they'll have a hard time with the game. Interestingly, this is also fairly severe meta gaming but of a sort that seems generally acceptable.

2) Prevent players from playing in more then one game with each other at a time. This wouldn't stop some types of metagaming, but it certainly would cut down on cross-board play I would think. It would also be a pain to impliment/enforce and cuts down on oon player freedom quite a bit.

3) Leave the determinig of whether or not a specific case is acceptable/unacceptable purely at the descretion of the powers that be (mods). This is essentially what Chrispminis suggested, and while it makes some sense I can understand why alamothe seemed bothered by this idea: there's no system in place (that I'm aware of) that makes the mods accountable. I'm not saying any of them would abuse their power (especially consciously), but having their guidelines on how to act be essentially 'punish if you think the accused went too far' means one can never be sure they will not earn themselves a ban.

Actually I'd much rather leave it up to number 1)

Agreed, Chrispminis.

There are new players here that have expressed interest in the leagues, and I felt it best that they join with open eyes regarding this issue.

I also felt that somebody besides yours truly should state it.

Popularity issues; you understand ;0)

Haha, nice. If I remember rightly Ghost wants to ban any cross-board action from the next set of leagues...