Maybe, except the problem with meta-gaming in leagues just insofar as ganging up on someone leading in points is bad enough. Plus, if one swears to meta-game against everyone who stabs them, I can't see having many potential allies left by game 3.

Plus, taking such action doesn't just hurt the other person, it hurts the person doing it as well by limiting their options.

if they are good players, they are probably only telling you that because they want to scare you so you stop stabbing them.
Don't take it too seriously.

If, despite your stab, your former enemy got enough pints to enter the next round, one would assume that he wants to win the next game just as much as you do, maybe even more so than you because he needs the points more urgently.

Just play your cards right, and your life will be invalueable for them

Yes, yes, I realize all that. Its just petty.

Oddly, right after I posted this, the same issue exploded between two other players in global chat.

I somehow suspect this level of bitching doesn't happen in the Premier League. Or maybe it does, who knows?

In the Premier there is going to even more because they've got more to win.
I want to choose a different alliance structure each time, although I may not get a chance.

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8867

well, in this game at least, TheMasterGamer threathened to do just that after I didn't want to surrender sweden to him.

sure enough, it didn't quite turn out as he thought it would.

suicide attacks never work

I thought Ghost wanted to remove meta-gaming from this season?

@Akroma at least get your facts straight when you comment. I never said I would meta-game against you if I did not get Sweden.

It is true the game did not turn out as I had expected as 2 alliance members, you being 1, changed the plan mid execution without letting the other 2 members know. This then opened up a turn in which France could have won the game, but he did not see the move. After that, it should have been a 3-way easily enough for the remaining large parties, but France decided to let you remain in the draw.

The suggestion in the opening post is not allowed.

the 3-way wasn't quite as easy as you make it sound

with france proving several times that he prefered a solo-win over a draw, there was no trust-basis for turkey and italy to eliminate me, while there was no actual guarantee that france would keep his word.

him having a solo-win sure would have been easy enough, turkeys little freak-out made it possible enough, but as you said, he didn't see it

Well, TheGhostmaker has spoken. This sort of thing is prohibited in the leagues.

@Akroma,

Easy 3-way draw. There was a stalemate in the Med. There was a stalemate in the north. France had no opposing fleets other than those locked in the Med. No opposing fleets could be built in the north (yes, you as Russia were alive, but would never get a build in StP again).

All France needed to do to gain the 3-way was to stop trying to win. To pull his units back to the central stalemate line of Bur - Ruh - Hol. Then tell Italy and Turkey, the game goes on until they take Mun, Kie, and Ber (you) out. No risk to him losing, no risk to Italy or Turkey's position worsening.

Btw, are you still claiming I threatened to meta-game against you or was your silence on the matter a kind of apology?

@TheGhostMaker - Not allowed to what extent? Because its happened twice now in the game I am in. Just discouraged or what?

Sent from: lulzworth Online (491 ) Sent: 11:12 AM
Maybe, except the problem with meta-gaming in leagues just insofar as ganging up on someone leading in points is bad enough. Plus, if one swears to meta-game against everyone who stabs them, I can't see having many potential allies left by game 3.
==================================================
This is not m-g. This is experiencing something, remembering that experience, and applying this knowledge to a similar future situation. You stab me. Contrary to popular sentiment, not everybody stabs all of the time. For whatever reason, I do not like your stab. If we play again, I'm going to remember you, and I will conduct myself accordingly. This is human nature.

M-g is, IMHO, you and I teaming up in a number of games as a plan to benefit us both.

I agree with your definition MapleLeaf. However, in a league setting.

What about this scenario: players A and B decide to work together in game 1. They come out with a 2-way draw.

Now, in game 2, the other players seeing the results of game 1, form alliances that do not benefit players A and B. This then results in players A and B being "forced" into an alliance again. Should they get lucky and come out ahead in game 2, game 3 will only be worse.

@mapleleaf - In general, I would agree but I think the leagues are different in that you're guaranteed to be playing against the same people for four games, and explicitly deciding to not just use caution, but act out a GRUDGE throughout the next 3 games (not, 'I won't trust you', but 'I am going to try and eliminate you in all games for this') is different.

It's a little early in the season to start talking about metagaming, anyway, isn't it? I mean, just because in week one of game one someone says they are going to play to kill you in all future league games doesn't mean that they actually are going to act toward that.
Additionally, someone getting pissed off about something that happens and calling out the person who pissed them off is not the same as saying that they will play to kill the person the rest of the season.
I agree wholeheartedly with Maple. If I were to suffer unduly due to you being extraneously evil, it is just remembering how you conducted yourself and taking suitable precautions against that in future games; league or not.

Playing out of a grudge is not allowed. If it appears to happen, I shall talk to the person playing in that way to sort it out. I intend to tread fairly lightly however.