well if you could manage it, perhaps it would be a legal form of cheating.

Thats just a board game rules to try to make people pay attention. Its just like in monopoly where you don't have to pay rent if the other player doesn;t notice, its trying to generate interest in the game, but you wouldn't consider adding that feature to the computer game.

as I understand it, the cheating rule is trying to add the dimension of spying, and , as also in real life conflicts, reminding players that warfare is not always played "by the rules".

There is cheating 'within the game' and cheating outside of the constructs of the game.

From the start in postal play and carried on through mainstream FtF
and email, trying to trick the GM was considered beyond acceptance.

The cheating aspects within the game were things for players like responsibility to correct adjudication errors,
listening to other people's conversations/reading lips/use of baby monitor listen devices in one case I recall, lying about other people's intentions/conversations/histories, in some circles the use of Flying Dutchmen (extra unit slipped on the board or take off), creative reading of orders (though this is generally now out of bounds in FtF play).
At the time this game was done, the entire concept in gaming that you would say one thing and do another and it not be considered as cheating was a mind blower.

Perhaps the cheating rules could be integrated into the modern era. example: Multi-accounting could be accepted as a cheat. If a player declares another of multi-accounting during game play, a check is done on email-ip address. if these match the cheater losses control of the largest faction and loses a turn. If the declaration is false (or can not be proven) the declarer must lose a unit (given back at unit placing). Opinions?

Don't like it. Multi-accounting isn't cheating as in the board game-postal game. A well done multiaccounting is (I think) almost impossible to detect, and is impossible in FtF. In postal play is possible, but I guess (I am not old enough) that it was considered a bad thing, and furthermore it was not really easy to do well, not like "register and play" as it is here.

"cheating of any type is occasionally acceptable in some circles of players" - not this one!
In my opinion, you can say what you want within a game, but as soon as you do anything about it outside a game you're cheating.
Oh, and I say metagaming/multiaccounting have no place in diplomacy.

The difference between glancing over someone's shoulder to look at their moves and multi-accounting is vastly different.

After all, in a face to face game it would be very difficult to be two different players convincingly! In face to face, the ability to multi-account or play two different nations is not on.

I have read though that in the play-by-post era, some famous players did indulge in playing two different nations. I wonder if I can find the articles?

The earliest and most famous case of multi-accounting as is called these days was in the game 1964C (third game started in 1964) and the person involved was John Boardman who is credited as having created the first Diplomacy postal Zine: Graustark. He has an alias names Eric Blake with a post office box that he used to receive right wing mail (John was very left wing and wanted to keep tabs on the other side). He decided that it would be fun to play two countries and pull an extended joke on the other players by playing two countries which were England and Turkey. At the end of the game there was a two draw between... England and Turkey.
The game took almost 12 months to play and when it was done and John published his 'gotcha' the other players went berserk. They felt that they had wasted a year of their gaming lives on the game, that they had turned down other opportunities to play elsewhere to keep up with the efforts in that game. They felt it was a personal insult to the integrity of the hobby and that it was an outrageous stunt that threatened the very core of the hobby by perpetuating a fraud.
John Boardman never played postally again as I recall, though his zine was published for over 40 years, and rumors abound that there still may be an issue or two left in John.
However, the entire hobby was shocked and it was clearly established that under no circumstances was it to be tolerated. You were looking at something close to a life time ban if you did it.
Remember also that in those days, only cowards used aliases, you owned the words you wrote and you signed your name. There was power and responsibility in the written word with anonymous equal to subversive, shallow and dubious.
One of the side effects of this was that there were greater feuds because people were less likely to back away from public statements since you did not hide behind your 'nickname' 'handle' whatever. Also there was a certain degree of moderation, after all if you were to write stupidity/hate/ignorance you wore it on your name in public.

And that's why I use my real name: Because I'm better than you all.

Wait wait *don't look at my score*!

Another way of looking at it, is that I use my real name because I am really really old.

Yeah... not acceptable here. I *might* permit it in F2F games... but certainly not on phpDip.

I have to say that when I posted this thread I was stunned and fascinated by this cheating concept. EdiBirsan comment that "cheating was a mind blower" was nearly spot on, however "a revolution" is closer to my mind. It seems to me that a third of the game is lost if we give up the concept of cheating (1/3 being diplomacy, 1/3 being working out what the others will move and moving accordingly, 1/3 cheating). Somehow the story of John Boardman was epic. In a sense John Boardman was a genius, for by cheating, he played the game of diplomacy "by the rules". Like all geniuses he understood what was obvious but never seen. Like all geniuses he was rejected and misunderstood. You may ask: "what difference does arguing this case do? There will always be those that cheat, no mater the game, who cares?" But this is where I see the unique opportunity diplomacy gives, the revolution. In diplomacy cheating is not only recognized but respected. Players may boast that they won, yes, because they cheated, and such a boast is a proud one. What I am suggesting is that this cheating be recognized and respected, as was originally intended. Opinions?

I find it very difficult to be ever able to think of a plausible point in favour of multi-accounting. Well, maybe create another account to add my first name (although I use RBerenguel almost everywhere, and I link to my blog where you can find my real name and work). Imagine a case of one 7-way multi-accounter. He always wons, he is a master of diplomacy! Woo-hoo!

"Imagine a case of one 7-way multi-accounter. He always wons, he is a master of diplomacy! Woo-hoo!"

Don't those happen a lot, actually?

Don't know if a lot, I am quite new to reading the forum and have at least read one case of it.

@Edi - wow - thank you so much for that great story. i've said it before, and I'll say it again - you are a treasure to the hobby.

@Yonder - should we have someone look at your IP buddy? you seem to be pushing this multi thing a bit much ;P

seroiusly though - the problem with multi-ing is this: this game (ANY game really) is meant to be fun and enjoyable. just as those other 5 players in the infamous case Edi related were ticked off about 12 months of their lives being wasted by a cheater - a vast majority of players in this or any other community would be pissed about finding out they were playing in an uneven field (hey, if we wanted to do that, we'd go to a casino).

the other issue Yonder, is that if indeed 'cheating' is applauded or tolerated - you'd lose a vast majoirty of the community and be left with a ton of accounts belonging to a few people who have no interest in winning or losing, just in ticking off everyone else. so you'd lose the entire community.

as for the actual rules - i remember there being a qualifier to the 'cheating' section that said issues external to the game should have no effect on the game. for example - you cant offer turkey $5 to let you into Ankara...

multi-gaming is similarly in that vein (as is meta-gaming: "I'll stay your real life friend if you dont stab me") in that creating two accounts is creating a 'fake' alliance inside the game - its an external action (creating two accounts) that affects the internal dynamics of a single game.

BUT - Yonder, you have come up with a weird rationalization - and if you decided to spell it out a bit and write an article, I'm positive that "Diplomacy World" (a monthly publication) and/or "The Zine" (a quarterly publication) would consider publishing your article...

I think the important part isn't the first half of this sentence, but the last: "cheating of any type is occasionally acceptable in some circles of players".

As defined on this forum's rules, multi-accounting is not accepted in this circle of players. Perhaps in other circles it would be. For an extreme (and hopefully! fictitious) example, see http://diplom.org/Zine/S1997M/Anon/NoHolds.html.

Oh - and in a FTF game, I offered to be a game long ally to the first person who got me a drink. Because I made it an open auction, it was deemed not cheating. Though Russia complained when I stabbed in three turns later (I was thirsty again).

So RobertDW where do you play FtF, the Chicago group (the Weasels) generally meets and plays in various Bars.

lol - just perfect for you ;) you might end up allying up with the bartender though.

If you were able to pull two-position play off in Face to Face, I would just give you credit for it.

Yeah. The way I see it there are two things you need to remember Yonder:

One, those rules were written for the Face-to-Face/board game version. And they we're originally written before anyone could have possibly foreseen people playing over an internet with anonymous accounts.

And also, the condition of it being: "occasionally acceptable...by some circles"

Your points are somewhat valid Yonder (although I wouldn't go as far as to say that cheating is a third of the game, I wouldn't even say it is a tenth.). But they aren't valid here, not in this circle of players - as has been said before.

LOL @Babak - "Bartender! I need double support for my move to the restroom, and could you convoy another scotch over here, while I'm gone?"