In my group I've had people chat about long term trust being built up, and effectively try to use one game to influence another, talking about the overall result of the league...
I think its very hard/impossible to avoid, but not sure if that makes it ok

Here are the league rules:

http://sites.google.com/site/phpdiplomacytournaments/thephpleague/thephpleaguerules

Here is what it says about metagaming for those that don't want to cut and paste the link:

"Players may not enter into agreements or alliances spanning more than one game, although they may consider different players’ league positions in their decision making within a game."

Also, there aren't seven.

The key thing I want to avoid is the fact that you aren't allied in one game spilling over into another.

seven games, that is.

Isn't it impossible to be allied across more than one game? You're only in each game w/ the other person one time.

Not true, Langaidin

how many games are there?

Depends on the league. I thought this was about the TMG Masters, with the 7 games comment. I think it is about the php league though...

I will say, in one division, the same allies seem to like to stick together, but some of that may just be personalities and players.

It is my understanding the league play encourages some metagaming, that the series of games is meant to be viewed as one extremely long game with all the ebbs and flows of a single game, perhaps more. Personally, I find one game plenty long enough. I would like to see a league where all games are anonymous and it's more about playing several games with the same people to determine which of that group is the better player based on numerous games, rather than based on the current "single game" concept of the current league.

Tantris, I found that as well. It's like a single game in which two people are allied the entire game, except in league play, that means they stick together for 4 or 5 straight games, which gets to be a bit much in my opinion.

From the FAQ:A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one. The classic example is threatening a stronger player in a weak game with a country in a different game where the tables are turned.
Meta-gaming is usually frowned on, but is acceptable in some cases and not seen as being as bad as multi-accounting.

From this definition, it seems that this is a wink-wink proposition. I think that there should be something more strongly worded concerning meta-gaming, especially in leagues, tourneys, etc.

They do not forbid meta-gaming through memories and known persons. There is no quid pro quo or agreement, it is just "I know I can work with Bob, and hey, let's do it again." Also, and here is something interesting, can you work with someone to make sure they finish near the top with you? Because, I believe from the allowance on metagaming, you technically could in the leagues.

Part of the league games is that there are certain people that are harder for you to work with. If you avoid those people, you kind of end up with the same set. Now, if you are always going to be allied with the same person, it could be a strength, but it can also be a weakness and taken advantage of. Honestly, I am not sure it is a problem. I am not sure I would want them anonymous.

I was offered a deal, sort of tit-for-tat, whereby doing one thing in one game would result in my being treated favorably in the next. I said I wasn't comfortable with the idea, and the offering person agreed that they too weren't comfortable with it but indicated they felt that everyone was doing it besides he and I, and that this left us at a disadvantage.

That could be all lies lol, but yeah. That's what I was told.

Furthermore there is a fair bit of global chat (and who knows how much private chat) about who is in the lead for the leagues so far, who should gang up on who, etc. etc.

I'm not sure where the lines are. From what I read on the rules I have no right to complain that it seems I am not being ganged up on because I am the perceived league leader, but that I do have a right to object to these 'I scratch your back you scratch my back' kind of deals?

I also want to apologize for taking this to the forums... I don't think I've ever knowingly commented on ongoing games here before but I thought I should at least try to clear the air on what's allowed and what's not, before things got out of hand.

re Jimgov: We're working on a rewrite of the rules at the moment - sorry for the delay. We've been just trying to work on some of the wording.

Sorry Ghost, I thought we were talking about the TMG tourney, not the other one. Or are they talking of a more complex/covert type of meta-gaming in the TMG one?