wait for the end of the game and e-mail a moderator if you still suspect something.

Thanks

...

You can email the mods NOW. You don't need to wait for the end of a game.

You mean BUL, and why would AUS not choose to support Italy? That's called an alliance, although it depends on guessing in gunboat games. Thereby, RUM was endangered by Russian forces.

Sorry, Bul right

Supporting in gunboat games =/= metagaming.

why would Austria go out of its way to help italy into somewhere when the same turn it could have taken a SC for itself?

anyhow, I'm saying it's suspicious. I'm not passing a verdict.

Please don't discuss an ongoing game here. Email the mods, but drop this thread.

It's simply part of a Lepanto. When AUS is giving centers away to Italy for no reason I'm getting suspicous

Lol. As the Austria (gameID=26839), I'll go ahead and say that that was a pretty obvious move for me to make. I was trying to make friends, not alienate them... If you'll notice, I also supported you into Rumania the turn you QQed and gave up, which essentially gave Russia everything, when had you stayed around for one more turn, we could have stopped him.

But where did *you* go? :)

Perfect coordination? Italy made a move one turn. Next turn he made the same move and Austria supported it. It was an obvious move. We need some sort of Metagaming Edu course for people to take.

Stop discussing an ongoing *gunboat* game here.

Draugnar +1

This thread -1

Jamie,
I would like to object to your awarding +1 to anyone other than me. Prior to your objectionable awarding of points, I had previously posted the same warning. I would suggest that perhaps you need to take a refresher course in 'Point Awarding 1-1'. Thank you.

@ Draug: by the time rlumley posted the game was already finished.

I'm not a fan of these accusations.

1. They're stupid. Giving support in a gunboat game is NOT metagaming, some people find it hard to understand that you might look beyond short-term interest.

2. By responding I revealed being part of the (anonymous gunboat) game.

3. And probably not being TUR or AUS or ITA.

Metagaming =
1) Being in the same game as someone you're living with and offering favours in exchange for support
2) Demanding support with menaces (menaces against your mum count)
3) Guessing correctly in gunboat
4) Having any kind of alliance
5) Playing PPSC games
6) Having a user name beginning with "a" (it has already been established that these are all the same person).
I hope that clears it up.

You forgot to mention that it's metagaming to play in a game with the same person more than once.

Dingle +1 : )

I even included a super nice emotican.

Hm, Stukus = Satan??

"Zybodia (240 )
12:43 PM
You forgot to mention that it's metagaming to play in a game with the same person more than once.
"

no it's not. Only if you exchange favors between games.

"Zybodia (240 )
12:43 PM
You forgot to mention that it's metagaming to play in a game with the same person more than once."
Apologies - of course you're right. I was using an old rulebook. I've also just discovered that offering anyone a DMZ in '01 and then reneging on the agreement is now classed as metagaming.
Still, only eight rules. How hard can it be?

OK, now THAT I need confirmation on.

If you offer a DMZ in 1901, then break it, that is metagaing?
A) why?
B) How can you prove that to anyone else in the game? Mods looking at chat would be the only ones to see it.

The list that Parallelopiped put together is actually a list of reasons why people come to the forum saying they think someone is cheating. He's just being funny.

Don't believe Alderian!! His username begins with an 'a' and therefore he's a metagamer.

Ursa=bearstein, HE'S A WITCH (totally kidding)

No, but seriously Golgo.
You had two questions
A) why?
i) Agreements made in S'01 are binding for 1 year (real time, not game time) see p27 paragraph 2 of the 1983 rules
ii) Breaking this is classed as metagaming rather than cheating because it's assumed that in order to be driven to such an act somebody would have to be torturing your granny
iii) Generally, we just don't like it.
B) How can you prove that to anyone else in the game? Mods looking at chat would be the only ones to see it
i) The bottom line is that mods are the only ones whose view on metagaming is relevant. If you find a cast iron case of metagaming but the mods are too busy or too mad or just don't like you and as a result they deem it not to be metagaming then it isn't. It's like rugby only without the buggery
ii) One way you could prove it would be to take a download of the person's thought processes and submit a transcript to the other players.
iii) This is a game with rules - it isn't a competition to see what you can get away with.
I think (particularly having noticed a competing thread) that I should add a "Reporting metagaming 101"
1) If you suspect metagaming then you should firstly ask the people involved if they are metagaming. Only if they answer yes should you take it any further.
2) The next step is to tell someone. The best way to do this is via the chat in a different game. If necessary join a new game.
3) If the person you tell agrees that it's metagaming then you should post it to this forum. Under no circumstances should you create a new thread. Simply add your accusation to the end of every existing thread.
4) You may, as a result, receive a series of sarcastic posts. In this case you should email the mods. Their address can be found in the help files (but not where you'd expect to find it - look under "convoy paradoxes")
5) If the mods don't reply within their target time of 7.5 minutes you should take out a full page advertisement in the major daily newspapers of all nations in your time zone.
I hope this clarifies things

@ Ursa:

I left because Turkey left. At that point I had no hope and I wasn't going to waste my time playing. Plus I was just a little bit pissed off that had he stayed around for a single turn longer, Russia woulda been owned.

Parallel + 20 million.

@ ottovanbis: It's Bearnstien.

Good night and good luck.

Dingleberryjones -1