People whom believe certain alliances can only be formed when they are Meta/Multi, Such as the WT. Got called a meta because E(me)G/F didn't fight for the first 6 years (until I stabbed both of them, then they did believe me). I think that Meta/Multi has become an excuse for losing (like lag/over-powered/under-powered is for video games)

It's sometimes used as an excuse for losing, but very rarely. Oftentimes I'll think someone was cheating like that in a gunboat because of a really well-coordinated alliance but then find out it's Lando/Czech/☺/etc and realize that they just kicked my ass. :P

The main thing is that the vast majority of people who call multi/meta do background checks after games to be sure if they have a case before they actually make a formal accusation.

If you care about people who are metagaming/ multiaccounting then play games which aren't anon. because people who do multi or meta usually play anon as its harder for the rest of the players to tell that their doing it. As their profile can't be checked.

I've also got a question... if your playing a game where you make an alliance with someone and do very well, then later you join a game and that same person is playing and you both decide to make an alliance because you know you play well together. What would you call that? because you're not friends from outside wed diplomacy.

I throw that in the same category as knowing someone's tendencies, which I covered in another topic. I'll dig up the post and restate it here because it's effectively the same situation; I say that is acceptable.

"If you've played with other people you naturally pick up on their tendencies. The rule against metagaming is out-of-game stuff; their tendencies are part of their play style which is certainly within the game, and though acquired outside of the specific game it is still information from within the game and thus legal."

Ok its good to clear that up, I just wasn't sure. Thanks Eden.

Sure thing, apem. Sorry we couldn't get that AncMed game going. It can be tough to find people at this time.

I would say though that you shouldn't always form unbreakable alliances with such a person. There is one player I've been in a lot of games with and who I really get along with. We've had several long term alliances until the end, alliances that went until one or the other of us stabbed, and some where we've been on opposite sides all game.

As for pet peeves, I'm usually pretty good at seeing things from another player's point of view, but sometimes I just can't understand where they are coming from and man is that annoying.

My biggest pet peeve is what is happening in a game right now. I am turkey and its Spring of 03, so far Russia has sent me 2 one line messages and has sent Austria 0 messages. Now he is surprised we ganged up on him. I just don't get how anyone can expect to survive without talking.

@PE: You're still mad about I/T alliance from that live game?

Know what I really hate? People who stop entering orders but continue to check in on the game, so everybody else has to wait the full phase length for every one of their freakin' non-moves. RAAAAAAAAGE!

Losing! I really hate losing! You'd think I'd be getting used to it by now. B-(

@jmo, ah right, forgot about zombies. I hate zombies.

I agree with SpeakerToAliens, the mods should really do something about this

@EM, they did. One of them, or at least someone, made a webpage you could go to where you always win. Hopefully one of them will see this and post the link. It was intended for multis so they could get that easy win feeling without bugging the rest of us I think.

lol. acmac, I hated that before that game and will hate it to the end of time. Preconceived alliance notions are stupid and the refuge of the weak; two strong diplomats can make any alliance work.

+1 jmo and coffeebean too, ESPECIALLY (for coffeebean's) in gunboats. YOU ARE NOT WAITING ON PRESS, FINALIZE YOUR DAMN ORDERS -_____-

I have yet to see Turkey and Austria work for more than a year or two, but yeah, generally anything can work.

My pet peeve is people who try and convince you not to attack them, or to stop attacking them by being incredibly obnoxious, calling you an idiot and saying things like "Now that you've stabbed me, you'll be gone for sure! You'll be out by next year! You're so stupid, why are you attacking me."
Also people who make implications about the kind of person you are IRL because of your attitude to stabs in the game. ie "It was in my best interests to stab you. Sorry, it's just a game." and then they say "Well clearly you're just an awful person who would lie and manipulate people just to win a game. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with you in real life, you must be such a prick."
Also the fact that I have caught myself doing the former thing when I've been on a particularly bad losing streak.
Also really bad losing streaks kinda suck too. And not even survivals, just when like 18 games in a row end in outright eliminations. Ugh.

Now granted that it took the likes of djbent to make this work... it's not something for the faint of heart or the inexperienced. But the best rebuttal I have to "A/T never works!" --

gameID=45972

Elite competition for sure between rdrivera, Lando, Troodonte, TheWizard and of course the eventual winner Frank. Had dj and I been more diligent, though, we'd have forced the 3-way draw.

===

And yes, absolutely, I almost wonder if I might have use for the mute button for people that go the whole "You're gonna die for this in 2 years" route. The only thing I really do there is just go "k whatever" and move along. (And I'm occasionally guilty of this myself... but I usually turn out to be right, so whatever. The peeve is when people do it when it's clearly not true, and I don't do that much at all.)

I don't care much about IRL implications because I always take refuge in escalating absurdity. "You must be such a sociopath in real life the way you lie and manipulate people just to win!" "Yep, and I kidnap people and eat their babies for sustenance, and gouge their eyeballs out for pleasure. You caught me." Tends to shut 'em up pretty easily.

I had an A/T work in a game against me.

Game ended up G/F vs A/T in a gunboat.

gameID=62641

this is the game, btw

I'm in a game where A-T kicked ass the whole game--anon game-cannot reveal link yet

My pet peeve is when people whom I've stabbed don't go down quietly...of course that's the opposite of what I do.

"My pet peeve is when people whom I've stabbed don't go down quietly"

Yeah, like this guy:

gameID=62912

acmac10:

Android Cockroach May Always Continue [existence] v10

My pet peeves are the people who try only up to the point where they're sure they can't win themselves, and see no value whatsoever in a draw or even an attempt to stop someone else from winning. The sort of annoying arse who says something in global along the lines of "Russia deserves it", and then proceeds to hand it to him on a plate.

No, sir, he does not deserve it! And even if he did that's no reason to give it to him!! if everyone got what they deserved you'd be on the receiving end of a kicking!

(rant over.... and relax :)... )

+ one million to coffeebean.

BESM and I did alright with an A/T once too...I messed it up by hitting him too early, but we still got to a four way draw.

gameID=54577