Hey! And after I just gave you a +1 in another thread! :-P

Oh, so now you're a metathreader too?!?!??

Absolutely... If you're gonna be accused of meta-ing, you may as well go all the way!

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

But I'm not *talking* about making an alliance - quite the contrary. I'm talking about having additional reasons *not* to trust someone. Now, granted, if I determine I'd be an idiot to try working with country X then logically I'm more likely to make an agreement with country Y, I submit that isn't the definition of metagaming.

If you *do* feel this is metagaming, I have to disagree - you're comparing using data on *all* players to make decisions with allowing a *relationship* with a specific individual to influence your behavior. I would submit the latter is metagaming, and the former is just common sense

strat +1 for explaining that so well. Thanks man!

There's no way you can argue that it's not metagaming. It is allowing something outside the game (ie. their reputation) to affect something inside the game (ie. your trust of them). The question is whether or not it is acceptable. Some people manage to delude themselves into thinking some metagaming is acceptable. I disagree. No metagaming is acceptable.

rlumley - try this one: By stating on here that you *never* take into account someone's previous actions from one game to the next, you are in fact influencing *them* in regards to *you* in the next game they play with you..."I back stabbed him last tie....but he won't take that into account in this game...so I will ally with him and back stab him again because he won't take into account my bad behavior..."

I won't be held culpable for your actions.

hmm 3 trolls in one forum thread (Draugnar, rlumley, Krellin) can't be good...

In other words, your comments in this forum about your particular style of game play -- *knowing* that others will read and remember-- is in fact you (passively) meta-gaming, by your definition.

Ahhh.but hellalt, the King of the Trolls, makes himself known. Hellalt - grow up. Nobody is trolling here except you - who no doubt is a meta-gamer since you can't distinguish one even from the next.

*event* (not *even*)

I was playing Russia recently and received an S'01 from Turkey saying that we were to have a DMZ in the black sea or else. I was happy to go along with this (note to all - I'm an easy going chap - not a pushover) but thought I'd see if I could find out a style the player followed. Anyway, in one of his recent games he'd done well as Turkey following unopposed moves to BLA and Arm in S'01 so I figured this was his game.
Anyway it didn't end well for me as first England and then Austria decided to swoop upon my wounded carcasse but he was eliminated much earlier (which, of course, vindicates me entirely).
Metagaming or just good sense?

Metagaming.

And (for a change) krellin is right. No one is trolling in this thread except you hellalt.

Good point Stratagos.

Let me clarify my point, anything like you take centre X in game A and I will take centre Y in game B is meta gaming IMHO. Knowing that player Z is a stabbing slimeball whilst player C can be trusted with your nymphomaniac daughter is intelligence.

LMAO at meta-threading.

My vote is for good sense, Po'P.

But if player C is me, then I can be trusted in a game, but *not* with your nympho teen daughter.

Lmao once AGAIN hellalt points out other trolls without mentioning himself

Also I agree. It is impossible not to take it into account.

It's another thing entirely to say:

"Oh but I won't stab Draugnar because I think he's funny on the forums."

No. THAT's metagaming. It's up to you to be responsibly cold and calculating in times like that. If you are not, you are both a poor dip player and a cheater in the sense of Rule 2.

Krellin, I don't need to metagame. Unlike you I'm an excellent player and I kick ass anyway.

@hellalt: I've never played you, moron. <yawn...> You bore me, and everyone else, too - but i doubt you have enough personal integrity to not cheat. You're still enraged like a child from something that happened days ago, and you're going to say you separate things? Naw...you're a meta-gamer all the way. I guarantee if we played you would focus on me regardless of anything else, because you have no integrity and are ruled purely by emotion. It's sad, really.

I actually don't take prior experience with a player into account much. This is because I have a terrible episodic memory. So there!

Please post your nymphomaniac daughters to me. I'm entirely trustworthy and am, in fact, thinking of setting up the St Catherine's Great School for Nymphomaniacs.

Krellin - I like you. But Hellalt's record stands out as him being a decent enough player. Yours, on the other hand, shows an inability to even force a draw. I fear hellalt can crow about his record against yours.

Oh - I admit my record is bad - atrocious even! I went through a flurry of *really* bad games when I joined. My record shall improve, my friend. Patience...I intend to win my lowly league to start... When I have the same number of game under my belt as hellalt, we shall reevaluate. On another note...cut it out with the "I like you" stuff. you'll ruin my finely cultivated "Troll" title! :P

So if you've played a player 3 times and this player as done nothing but lie and stab in all 3 games and you play him a 4th time and you decide not to believe him this time because of your past experiences then some here consider THAT cheating? That must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Players should be held accountable for their actions. It's called a reputation and games, like life, should take in to account reputations. To not do so is just asking to get beaten. That's natures way of weeding out the slow.

@Draug in OP: I don't

I can't believe that remembering someone playing style and using that as information in a future game is even being considered as meta-gaming. I know the example has been used already but let's pretend we're playing a FtF game. There are 7 friends playing and Player A remembers from many previous games that Player B is a strong long term ally but also remembers that Player C is a lying back-stabbing monster. Clearly noone would accuse Player A of cheating for choosing Player B over Player C in an alliance would they?