Yep, most certainly.

Rules are necessary even in a game based on deceit. Without a basic rule structure and an observance of those rules, the whole process is a farcical waste of time.

My biggest beefs on this site have been over agreed rules not being followed or supported. I have no problem being outplayed and stuffed within a system, but when there is a breakdown in the application of that system, I object.

If I had to define what good play means, I'd say it is to play in a manner which gives you the position and ability to successfully negotiate better deals with the other countries after each turn.

I like the social element of the Leagues. But if they are to be the main tournament here (which they are) they have to promote good play. It's simply not ok to have them based on metagaming. How games are played should be of higher priority than fun, because you cannot have fun if, by design, games are rotten.

If we had good anon games people will write EOGs and discuss them. Instead we have people still arguing about who was the worst offender and who started it first, a year ago...

I did not know the League rules are carved in stone and the people in charge have decided to role-play the RCC. The site is changing, player behavior is changing, new options are available, let's use them.

This tournament has to be changed to stay relevant. It is a statistical fact that it's simply a function of time for people to get pissed off and leave. And do we really want to promote this type of play? This cannot be what you want?

I would also like to chime in to support the leagues becoming anonymous - this is my first year and I am only in the D leagues (but based on the stories so far people are upset in the Premier, A and one of the D leagues at least) - which tends to indicate this is a common experience.
I have been very disappointed with the league experience. League D2 (in which pastoralan, Julien and I are playing) has been marred by a lot of things - and without going into details, the fault lies with multiple people. Things have got very personal - at least 3 people have sworn retribution with definite impacts on future games. Alliances stopped being fluid long ago once people starting swearing retribution the us and them camps form quickly. Without going into the rights and wrongs of who did what, I feel that I will come away from this league probably never wanting to play another non-anonymous game with Julien (and he may well feel the same in return).
If the leagues do not become anonymous then I think there will be real impetus among the good players of this site to create an alternative tournament format to recognise the best of the best in WTA play.

Maybe the scoring system could be altered:

* No draws allowed unless there is a stalemate line
* In case of a draw only the player with the most number of SCs gets points

How is this related to the metagaming/anon issue?

This issue is one of the reasons I have never joined the leagues. If it was understood explicitly from the outset that metagaming was part-and-parcel and this was understood by all the player then that might be fine. But if you have a situation where some players assume that metagaming is fine, while others think it is unethical, then there is a serious problem.

One way to explore thuds situation might be to consider metagaming as the REAL game. But if that leads to a ludicrous situation, or one where the players do not like it then maybe anon is the way to go.

Typo on iPhone: thuds = this

"* No draws allowed unless there is a stalemate line"

I can't agree with this as it not to change the tournament rules, but changes the diplomacy game rules...

What is the biggest reason to engage in metagaming in the leagues?

Survival.

You can even win by just drawing repeatedly. It is quite tempting to get a gang going and make sure that you are always one of the remaining few who take the draw.

reasons to metagame.
(1) your not good enough to win without doing so
(2) it pisses peple off
(3) It improves your oh so sacred Ghost Ranking

I and another person drew three of the games in C2. Tied in points, he had a few more SCs for the win. It was a C league, so we both moved up, but draws and keeping people out of them are how it is usually won.

This stupid phone just lost a long post going into my thoughts, so I'll retype it when I get back to my PC, but suffice it to say there is plenty of reason to do limited meta in the leagues and it is clearly expected when you "should consider position".

@Troodonte: I would assume the aim is to have fun. If the rules are preventing a large number of people from having fun then we should alter the rules to fit our purpose.

Game rules are frequently changed to increase popularity (fun): no backpass to a goalkeeper in football, three point line in basketball etc.

We are already bending the official rules of Diplomacy by allowing negotiations during retreat and build phases.

There is nothing in the official Diplomacy rules that deals with the concept of the leagues. I am merely suggesting that we change the scoring system for the leagues and not really the rules of the game itself. League games will work as they have when it comes to webDiplomacy points (D) or GR.

@Draugnar: If you had known that having the second most SCs or less in a draw would not give you anything towards moving up a league, would you still have drawn those games you mention without trying harder?

Hi, I am an old fart that is making a return. I just found out these leagues exist! Can anyone point me to somewhere where I can get more info? I am mostly interested in the length of turns as I don't want to commit a lot of time.

And chillax, this is just a game.

Is meta gaming really allowed in leagues? wow.

I tried to get the win in the last, I beleive, or at least try to get more SCs, but alas, I failed and it almost cost me. And through most of it, I was thinlking that only one second place would move up so I kept comparing my points and SCs against the other leagues. The point is, I tried to win the league outright. It just wasn't to be.

No, metagaming is not allowed except for the fact that you're allowed to let league position affect your decisions (and what that means exactly is anyone's guess).

League info: http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/thephpleague

flash, that game one solo took a VERY long time to play out, the other three games had all started by the time game one finished, and most were at late stages of their respective game. For most of game one, it was clear how you were walking a very thin line, but it was slightly unclear if you'd actually pull off a two-way draw. As games two, three and four progressed under the assumption that you may two-way draw game one, decisions were made based on my educated guess of what would ultimately happen in game one (solo or two way draw).

The idea of the league is for multiple games to be played as one long game. Your actions in game one, helping someone else solo, were (at least somewhat) taken into consideration for future decisions in other games that comprised that league, at least by me.

Meta -gaming IS the League Tournament, anlari. I've dropped out because of it.

gjdip - "* No draws allowed unless there is a stalemate line"

I have to totally disagree with this idea. A stalemate line is a good way to force a situation that can't be fixed through diplomacy. But there are lots of reasons to draw that don't involve a stalemate line.

For example, you end up in a 2 vs 2 situation, stalemated between the two sides, but not between the allies. In many cases no single player is in a position where they can back stab without being destroyed by the other three. Even if the other two say they won't, you can't count on that.

Which is why so many games end in a draw - no one is brave/clever/foolhardy enough to try to go for the solo.

anlari, you are one of the best players I have met on this site. Your tactical skills in particular stand out. Maybe you could put them to good use in the Leagues but I have to say that I found the whole experience very disappointing. Indeed, I withdrew at one point and so did a lot of other players - especially from the top end.

Why is that only premier league has problems :-)