It is metagaming by definition, but there isn't really anything you can do about it. There will always be some (relatively) valid ingame excuse for the hater's tendency to attack the other guy. I'd suggest playing Anon in the future.

it says very clear that you cant form aliances for reasons outside the game,it will be metagaming
there is also rule number 9 "use common sence" abstract but simple
the best way to play a 7 players game where you know each other is anonimous

(I'm the one who's hated on). I think it'd ruin the game for everyone in all honesty because say I'm Russia, and he is Austria - Turkey knows he can count on Austrian support to attack Russia. and its not a trust thing - he KNOWS Austria wants the player gone - not russia, not the land, the player. Our first local game I thought of rule 9 and didn't invite him (or tell someone else to) because I saw this as a problem... And un-anon was fine despite knowing each other.
But having the guy who refuses to acknowledge me in the game just cripples the game I think (and sadly I'd be the center of that - though it'd overrun to other players) which is why he wasn't part of our last game. I'm just going to play this game and see if it does compromise the match. But I'm 99% certain it will. Through his end only though - I will try to bridge the gap if the opportunity presents itself.

Welcome to the site!

While it is technically against site rules to attack someone for outside reasons as you describe, it's often hard if not impossible to prove that is the case.

Honestly, if you started a game with someone who truly hates you in real life, I'm not sure we'll have much sympathy if they end up attacking you in-game. Diplomacy is a game; why play it with people you aren't friends with?

abgemacht
webDip Admin

@abgemacht: I think that's right. If, as the OP suggests, this player has joined a game with people who "hate" him in real life, that's their look out.

@abgemacht +1 here.
On another hand, if the group of people know themselves well in real-life and have played enough games together, anonymous won't work. My group of friends tried that when we discovered this site, and by the end of turn 1 we already knew who everybody was.

The one guy hates me, the other guy would just find it hilarious to abuse this to unite against me (thats just whats he's like)... and I joined the the game before the one who hates me (not knowing he'd join). When I joined, it was with people only from out last game (which ran smoothly without any problems or seemingly meta-gaming tactics)... Just going to have to see if he'll put aside his quarrel with me and play the game...

I have a question for abgemacht

you say it is "technically" against the rules to attack a player for any reason that
is external to an individual game.

If I take a serious dislike to a player for whatever reason in one game,
1. are you saying I cannot play "seek & destroy", that is seek him out in new game(s)
and conspire to effect his downfall in those new games ?

2. if I find myself in a new game with that player by circumstance (as opposed to 1st question where I deliberately seek him out ) must I give the disliked player a "clean slate" & ignore the "lessons of a previous experience" with the disliked player ?

3 how can there be a difference between not being allowed to attack for external reasons and being allowed to "not attack" or make a peace for external reasons ?

why is there an apparent difference between the ability to make arrangements
that are hostile to a certain player, and the ability to make arrangements that benefit
a certain player, or have I misinterpret'd randomcomm3nt's comments ?

oh and why is Moran "whingeing" about having two players who will definitely be against him in a Dip game ? If i could play games where i could be assured of only having two enemies the "dip caper would be a doddle"
with my track record I am used to having games where all 6 other players are
probable enemies, excepting of course, jamiet99uk who is a sterling chap and everybody's friend

That's what I said MajorMitchell, that having 2 on 1 was inevitable and he was lucky it was those two (neither are particularly strong players).

Personally, I like to think a valid game would start with everyone being equally willing to ally with me as they are willing to ally against me, so I wouldn't waste my time playing that guy, especially with so many great people one this site that you can play with that will give you a fair shot.

@MajorMitchell:
"2. No Meta-gaming
You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game, such as because you are friends, relatives or in return for a favour in another game. This is known as metagaming and is against the rules because it gives an unfair advantage to those involved. If you are worried that you can't stab someone because you want to stay friends, then that's fair enough but you can't join a game with them."

I thought this because the rules state nothing about about attacking for external reasons, only for allying for external reasons.

well what about that pestiferous Draugnar ???
I feel I should insist that I have a right to conspire against Draugnar in any game
without having any rational basis whatsoever.

i think ill change my nickname to "rule9"
once again if you and some player really hate each other and you both know that and you know you wont be friendly anyway,and you are playing with only friends who know that situation,why not play "seek and destroy" as long as the rest of the board agree
the name of the game is diplomacy so use your diplomatic skills to get the other 4 players to help you.
i will also recomend wta and not ppsc so it will force everyone to try and take solo win

Gentlemen, allow me:

"A group of us are playing local games (7 players) and a friend of ours passionately hates a member of our group, and has ignored him for some time."
-Wow. That does not look like a group I want to play any kind of game with, but alright I'll bite:

Hating is bad. Here's why:
let's assume the hated person (A) "mirrors" the feelings of his enemy (B). In other words, he declares himself just as willing to destroy B as B is to destroy A.
Now, the board has two powers (A, B) who are set on destroying each other. The other powers can do with that information what they want. They can choose to help A, or help B, or help themselves.
This means the other powers have a strategic flexibility that A and B now lack.
In other words, hating another player leads to the downfall of both A and B.
Just show to your... "friend" that his strategy is not getting him anywhere.

Metagaming an enemy is just as detrimental to the game as metagaming an ally. Abge wasn't saying any different, he was just stating that it is hard for us to really "prosecute" this behaviour because it is so easily avoidable and difficult to prove.

As MadMarx said, just don't play with him. Or play anonymous. And if you're one of the ones that starts a game knowing they'll ignore, attack, or ally against someone else just because of their name, you're a dick and don't understand what Diplomacy is all about.

Well... this may not be a problem - we're France/Germany - they're natural enemies so I guess it works out THIS game. the other guy is Turkey too, so no involved with us directly...

redhouse 1938 makes a really good point, with his example of A & B,
letting emotional issues ( eg personal dislike ) dictate strategy limits the ability of
a player in a game situation.
However, let's not delude ourselves with the fiction that decision making is a strictly
rational & logical process when humans are involved.
Any smart advertising person knows that emotions drive most human decision
making processes and they use this to influence our purchasing decision making.

I like the notion that in an illogical, often irrational & unpredictable "human world"
that sometimes the best ploy is to behave in a similarly illogical & irrational way.

Take this web diplomacy, i am an old fuddy duddy who play'd the Dip board game
and there was a lot more predictability in Dip games where all the players were of
a similar level of experience and ability. That is you could reasonably expect all
players to put in orders, and chose the option that was the most efficient use of
their units. players might be strategically dificult to predict, but at a tactical level
there was a definite predictability in play.

This web diplomacy is a different beast,
there is often a great variation in player ability & experience amongst the 7 players
in a "common" web game ( serious competitions might be not have such a great
range of variability in player exp & ability )
Random non starting countries, Random countries going into CD at all stages of a game, the weird & surprising tactical moves of novice players etc all make these
"common" web Dip games a lot more anarchic / unpredictable, which I enjoy,
as I think there is more opportunity in a more anarchic game

If two players A & B have the other 5 players expecting them to have an all out, no
prisoners taken stoush, then sometimes the best strategy for the two players A & B
is to form a secret alliance.

Anyway my tip would be to pay good heed to the suggestions and ideas of MadMarx
with his ranking he may know a thing or three about the Diplomacy caper

my comment about Draugnar was a flippant one,
but i do reserve the right to conspire against him without having any logical
or rational basis for such a course of action.
it's what i call the "Draugnar exception" to the rules of Logic

I

Well thanks MajorMitchell,
I've recently had to work on the "irrational opponent element" of the game, but I decided to take a rational stance against it nonetheless. I think illogic should be combatted with logic, just a logic that builds in these kinds of elements.

In other words, I won't put stupid moves in, but I will make sure my moves can defeat both a smarter and a less smart player, and this may not be the moves that are most likely to yield to me the most result, or minimize the damage, but build in elements of both.

Wow. That last post was another linguistic disaster but you probably understand what I mean :)