Umm, I'm kinda down with the opinion that not all metagaming is against the rules, only certain forms of metagaming. I think that making decisions based on the relative skill of various players is a perfectly legitimate strategy.

Also dude, I can totally tell who u***** and R***** are. You really should be more careful when posting about an ongoing game in the forums.

I should say the perceived relative skill levels.

Mafia....it's NOT an ongoing game. And....relative skills? funny....I had never played against the person making this statement. And, also, I find the notion that "X played the game this way last time" automatically equals "so I can predict his actions". If that were the case, we could just start a game, run it through a computer, and just read the per-determined outcome.

But to deny that this is basing in-game actions on outside-game influences...and is therefore meta-gaming....is ludicrous.

That being said, yes, I admit that is is extremely difficult to NOT metagame if you know a player in the game. But when you *blatantly* state that you are metagaming....isn't that crossing the line????

1. Agree
2. nothing wrong there.
3. Acknowledges doing some research on the players. Normal practice. No problem.
4. Draws conclusions based on the research. Consequence of the above.
5. Shady. Could be additional research, could be slightly metagamish.

These statements may not be true, and logically they don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that you should be attacked, but that's beside the point.

You ask whether this guy is metagaming, I say no.

You ask whether he's playing logically and strong, I would say probably there's room for improvement.

The current standard for metagaming is woefully vague and unfortunately I don't see a good way to change that. I personally define metagaming in a manner that's more or less as vague as the definition now, but that redirects the focus of the rule in a manner which I believe is more in line with the intention behind it.

I define metagaming as allowing outside events to have UNDUE influence on a game. The word "undue" creates a value judgment that still leaves the rule itself unfortunately open to subjective interpretation; however, by focusing on the undue nature of the influence, instead of the mere existence of the influence (as the current standard stipulates), I believe it is more in line with what the rule attempts to do: prevent irrelevant matters from having relevance in a game.

Let's say, for example, that I am England in a non-anonymous game. My neighbor, France, is played by a person who has completed 15 games on the site, and been France in all 15 games, and has attacked England right off the bat in every single one of those games. I would find it hard to say that taking the knowledge that my neighbor has attacked the country I am playing in every single game he has played on the site into mind when planning a strategy is 'undue influence.' The player has an obvious tell that is made extremely visible by the player's record on the site; why wouldn't I pay attention to it?

By site definition, this is metagaming, as it takes outside-game information -- the fact that the player has, in every single previous game, attacked the country I am playing now is in fact outside of the game I am playing -- and applies them to the current game. And yet it passes my own personal standard. And I further suspect that the moderators would not punish me for admitting to taking that kind of information into consideration.

In contrast, the flagrant example of metagaming -- cross-game alliances or wars, as the case may be -- is undue. That someone attacked you in a previous game has no bearing on the current game; the actions of an agent in one game carry context specific to the game which is not replicated in the other game. If I, as England again, attack someone as France, I am not doing it without consideration for Germany, Russia, Italy, Austria, and Turkey's actions and communications within that game. That context cannot just be ignored. Thus, using that action as pretense for that same someone to attack me in a subsequent game is allowing undue influence of the events of the first game on the events of the subsequent game, and would not pass my or the site's standards for metagaming.

With that in mind...

I don't find this to be metagaming as defined to be 'undue' influence. (1) is just not true, the aim of Diplomacy isn't "kill someone," but relevant to the metagaming conversation this means nothing. (2) was a correct assessment of the board (as I would know, having been in that game). (3) doesn't definitively say anything, in fact, given the use of "I believe," but assuming it is true, it's still not unacceptable metagaming under my definition. That can be verified by checking records; as it turns out u and R are pretty good players, and having verified past experiences with available records, all this says is that the player in question did not want to attack a player perceived as strong on his own. And, as I know the diplomatic situation of that game, I know that the player would have had reason to think he was going it on his own were he to attack u or R. (That turned out to be false, but the only person who would have known that in time was me. ;) ) (4) is a logical continuation from (3). One oughtn't leave his back turned to anyone in Diplomacy, let alone players perceived to be very skilled at the game. And (5) is no bigger a tell than the England/France example I gave in defining acceptable metagaming. Just as I would factor in knowing from the past that some player always attacks country X when playing country Y, I would factor in knowing that someone is reasonable or unreasonable in my decision-making. In fact the only problem I have with (5) is that it's silly. You don't need past experience to determine if someone is reasonable. Just look at what they're saying in-game. But it's not unacceptable levels of metagaming.

Eden - nice dissertation. I don't completely agree with it....for example, the use of "Player X plays 15 games and is France every game and always attacks England" example is not realistic, and therefore, like any bad test data, I throw it out when making my statistical analysis.

As for your Points 1-5 analysis, I understand your rationale....and yet you also know (as you confess) there is more to the story....and I have not asked the full question in my post...So I may agree that the specific details of the question posed in this post may not be meta-gaming.....but will suggest that the full picture as you and I know it is.

But, I guess what I find disturbing is the notion that you apparently are all a bunch of robots, and if I study your games enough I can figure out what you will do. I can guarantee you I do not play every game the same. Studying my history will show you not much....some games, I will stab repeatedly...and in others, i will be true to the end. My decision to stick with an alliance or not is generally based upon the other players *in the context of the game at hand*....what they are saying or doing. I rarely study past games.

Frankly, if all of you experienced players spend the first turn of every game studying the previous games of all the others players, then by definition you are all cheats, correct?

To which I would say....the historical archives of games should be eliminated, or at best be available only to the players involved, or perhaps all historical games should be anonymous after a 10 day period for the players involved to review.

Basically, this site says "meta-gaming is bad"....and then says "here's the record....meta-game away!!!" That makes no sense.

@Krellin, you are not the first person to point this out, and this is one of the bigger topics of contention on the site. The solution is available to you though, anonymous games solve the problems you just mentioned.

Play anon if you're determined to avoid meta-gaming.
A small amount of meta-gaming will always exsist if you play the same people in any game more than once.

"I don't completely agree with it....for example, the use of "Player X plays 15 games and is France every game and always attacks England" example is not realistic, and therefore, like any bad test data, I throw it out when making my statistical analysis."

Admittedly, it's extreme, but the idea was simply to create a clear situation where by site definition one is "metagaming" and yet simultaneously no one in their right mind would call you on it. Taken instead as simply "players have tendencies which can be read and rightfully have a place in strategizing," perhaps it will seem a more useful point.

Agreed regarding your second paragraph. Unfortunately the record won't show it, because the game was cancelled, but you may recall that I did acknowledge the presence of metagaming, so yes, knowing the full story I'd say so.

"But, I guess what I find disturbing is the notion that you apparently are all a bunch of robots, and if I study your games enough I can figure out what you will do."

I will grant that I haven't looked over my own results enough to see if there are any trends, but I doubt there are with me. More to the point, though, trends are predictive, not by any means absolute. This discussion, like any of this nature, is academic to a degree.

"Frankly, if all of you experienced players spend the first turn of every game studying the previous games of all the others players, then by definition you are all cheats, correct?"

And now I must be careful. I have not once sat down and traced anyone's tendencies in the manner which I have described above. I have heard of people doing it, and I understand the rationale, as it's fairly intuitive, but I have not yet had the chance to implement it and, upon considering the very real possibility of it being cheating, I don't believe I will be implementing it any time soon.

"To which I would say....the historical archives of games should be eliminated, or at best be available only to the players involved, or perhaps all historical games should be anonymous after a 10 day period for the players involved to review.

Basically, this site says "meta-gaming is bad"....and then says "here's the record....meta-game away!!!" That makes no sense."

Agreed with the acknowledgment of contradiction, but I disagree with the proposed solution. If we are in agreement that analysis of previous games is not wrong (not in the site rules sense, but in the plain right-and-wrong sense immaterial of rules), I see no reason why the definition of metagaming cannot be amended to exempt such practices.

If you amend the definition of meta-gaming to exclude the use of histrocial data, then I would agree it is not meta-gaming, as that is what the rule would THEN state.

As currently implemented, allowing the perusal of historical records is like sticking a rock of crystal meth in front of a junkie. You say it's meta-gaming, and agree to the extent that you won't comment on it, and won't be doing it any time soon...so there is a fault in the system, or the rules. Choose one way or the other....but choose.

Had a clarification of the rules been in place, or a change in the rules/system been in place, perhaps I would have had no cause, and a mod wouldn't have had to waste a great deal of time straightening out a mess between a bunch of egomaniacs and dickheads. lol

It's a problem with the rules. I would argue for my definition, naturally :P

Perhaps the nightmare that was resolving that game will lead to a long-needed amendment of the definition of metagaming.

Agreed, it's a problem with the rules, as it is damned near impossible to code-out the situations that arise.

Thoughtful discussion. thank you for your views. Now....get to changin' the rules! :P

I do not think it is cheating in any reasonable sense of the word to use your knowledge of a player to your advantage.

In virtually every serious competitive game that exists, players become known for certain tendencies, strategies, tactics and patterns. I don't think it even crosses anyone's mind that say.....a football team defense putting more pressure on a star quarterback....would be considered cheating.

It's similarly unreasonable to say that a Diplomacy player should clear his mind of the knowledge that the last 3 times he played a match with X player, right around 12 centers that player stabbed his ally and tried to go for the win. It's probably *impossible* for him to forget that information once he noticed it. Maybe the in-game situation causes him to put that information to the side, but it's still inane to imply that he should (or could) wipe his own memory of past events.

The only way to prevent this kind of strategizing (which it is) is to hide all the records of previous games and hide the names of the players in the match you're in.

Luckily, this feature already exists. If you object to players knowing things about your record or remembering how you've played or treated them in past games, then play anonymously. If you feel cheated by players in non-anonymous games, then play anonymous games.

Your solution to the problem of this type of "cheating" is basically to eliminate the option of non-anonymous play...which is unlikely to happen from a pragmatic point of view. Further, it's unwarranted. You already have the option to play the type of game that you want - no records and no ability to use past experiences with players - so it's unfair to force all players to play the way that you personally prefer.

It is probably meta-gaming, to a certain extent, but not *all* metagaming is considered an offence. I am pretty certain the mods would take no action on this one if you made an official complaint.

The rulebook talks specifically about forming alliances for out-of-game reasons, and then goes on to explain that this means out-of-game in the sense of 'outside the site' - scenarios in which you are allied in a game with someone who is your friend etc in real life. In this case your complaint isn't about an alliance, but about his decision to attack you. Nor do you suggest that the players know each other outside the world of webdip. His decision to attack you, while based on something that you could call metagaming, is not something that would ever get him banned or punished, and I think that's quite clear. No re-writing of the rules is needed.