"I am biased because I am benefiting...." Says the douchebag with no integrity...

Ok, just a couple of points:

1. smcbride: Well done for apologising. Forming so many alliances with your real-life brother without disclosing your relationship to anyone in any of the games involved, is clearly unacceptable metagaming. The mods were right to slap you down, but you did well and manned up by apologising.

2. I think the rest of the debate in this thread underlines the fact that the site's rules on meta-gaming are too vague and would benefit from updating to provide greater clarification based on recent rulings.

"Basically, you have no credibility moving forward" -krellin

As someone who also (in my case totally inadvertently - i was introduced to Diplomacy by friends who liked to play it and we often sat in games together and had no idea such a thing was "bad" until I was told by the mods) taken to task for metagaming and essentially told I could no longer play in games with anyone I knew in real life unless we all announced it to the entire game beforehand, I would also say this rule is a bit unclear.

As it is now the rule is "Do not play with real life friends if you cannot play fairly with them. End of discussion." but what does that mean? In my case I think that if RL relationships influenced decision making it all it tilted us towards stabbing each other, trying to beat each other, etc. But the fact is that millions of things influence my decisions. I have stabbed someone because I read a bunch of obnoxious political posts of theirs in the forum. Meta-gaming? Absolutely. But I had to choose to stay with one person and stab the other. One reason had to tilt me in one direction or another...

But, and here is where it gets tricky, Diplomacy IS a metagame. It is the meta-est of games. It encourages and requires you to get as much information as you can by any means necessary.

And people refer to past games all the time. How often have you been told in press "Look at my history with country X, I often work with country Y" etc. That is also metagaming.

And I don't understand the privileging of RL relationships over other ones. In fact, isn't it MORE likely that two people here that are regular diplo players and have a history of playing together will be making moves based on others tendencies in very real ways than just a vague sense of "Maybe these people will softplay each other because they are friends IRL" (and really, you must have some weak friendships if they can't handle a few knives in the back, or even relish them) I would MUCH rather know when sitting down at the table that players X and Y often stab each other in the endgame than know that they are friends IRL.

In my case the mods decided (and I agree) that it didn't affect my play, I didn't know it was wrong, and I just couldn't play games with my RL friends anymore unless we all announced it at the table before the game started. (ie no punishment just a don't do it in the future) This seems to make sense in an odd way, and is how I interpret the rule now. If you know /anyone/ playing the game IRL you have to tell /everyone/ before play begins.

So it's fine, I'll do that if I ever play in a game with them again. At least that is clear...

But again, this seems an odd privileging of RL relationships (and what does that even mean? am I more/less likely to ally with them etc) when other relationships arguably have much MORE of an impact on how the game is played. ie; people arguing in the forums here, or observed diplo tendencies, or revenge for two stabs in a row, etc.

It would be nice to imagine every game happens in a vacuum. And for those that want that, I suppose anon games with enforced press styles are about as close as it gets. But otherwise, there is so many many things that effect decisionmaking - if not consciously than unconsciously - that picking one of them and leaning on it seems odd.

(Also for the record, I am the admin of a message board with over 10k members and I can assure you that moderators cannot read private messages. It is a bit strange. As someone who has access to the actual database files I could of course pull them out, but it seems off for mods to have access to PMs. And I think if google or facebook had access to emails without a subpoena then all shit would hit the fan)

My .02 as someone that hasn't been around long, was introduced to Diplo here basically through friends, avoids forum drama, and inadvertantly broke rules about playing with friends (I mean, aren't most games played with friends, that aren't played for money?)

Rule should be tell everyone at table if you know anyone in the game. But even that is weird and incomplete. And metagaming will always exist, at least unconsciously.

Krellin, I really don't care what you think. I made it clear that I cheated in the eyes of the admins. I listed some things that frustrated me with the interaction I had with the mods. My first thread has several parts that are disingenuous. What it all boils down to is that I didn't think I was cheating. Then, when I realized that I might be cheating I stopped doing it. I never heard anyone say you should disclose personal relationships in chat before. If so I would have had no problem doing that. What it really boils down to is that you can easily silence me. Go ahead and mute me and you will never have to read anything I post, unless we end up in a game together, then i will let my diplomacy skills speak for themselves. If you hand me my ass then fair enough, If I hand you yours would you change your tone?

I couldn't agree with erist more.

I agree with Lando, if it is a rule that you have to state the players that you know in real life, which I have, then it should be written. When I was investigated, a Mod told me that as long as I did not communicate with my friends, outside the game, then we were not meta-gaming. Fortunately, I did not communicate with them outside of our games, and therefore I am still here. I think the same should be applied in this instance, and furthermore the rules on meta-gaming should be clarified. If, then sentences would be helpful, otherwise you end up with players, like this guy and myself, who play diplomacy with their friends or family, and are not exactly sure what the rules are.

Diplomacy is a game. I like this game. I like my friends. I like to play games with my friends. It's not like we all join a game and support each other all day and night and then draw when it is just us left. Sometimes we ally, sometimes we fight, sometimes we stab, all of that is a part of the game anyways. So if there are such bannable offences then they should be clearly stated for all.

Erist, that was a really long post, but well said. I was recently contacted by the mods for metagaming as well. As a new member to webdiplomacy, I wasn't aware of this. Most of my games were in private with four or six other people who I knew in real life, but I did violate the rules. I was warned, and told not to do it again, which I won't. But I do think that a certain type of meta-gaming is the nature of Diplomacy. You decide who best to ally with based on all the information you have on that person. If some of that comes from outside the specific game you are in, then it happens.
I also want to emphasize that I am neither attempting to excuse my actions nor justify it. I did indeed cheat. It is a behavior I will not repeat, and I appreciate the mods forgiveness for being stupid enough to not read the house rules.

agree with joshildinho. That is how the rule was explained to me now and the way I am taking it is literally - you can't play with anyone you know at all in real life (in my case I had never even met some of the people, just knew they were friends of friends and playing in the Diplo game) without explicitly telling people who it is. I thin VDip has little "pods" or something where you have to actually add anyone you know IRL as having a prior relationship with you. Again seems odd as it seems other things will influence the game much more on meta levels than the fact than that I know X is a friend of Y in real life, but so be it.

I do think this seems like agray area. For example, consider this quote from jmo:

"Allying with someone for any reason outside the game, especially trusting them because you know them in real life, is considered meta gaming and is not fair to everyone else in the game. "

But actually, smcbride never said he trusted them "because he knew him in real life." He said, "Although, we commonly formed alliances, it is because we knew the other person to be a reliable ally." This could just have been from playing 15 games together -- not from being brothers. There are people on this site whom I know to be reliable allies. It is not possible for me to forget this when I play a game with them. This has always been the case in diplomacy, as anybody who has played extensive f2f would know (whether with friends or in tournaments, people get to know each other and take personal traits into account. This is not avoidable, irrespective of whether it violates a rule).

That said, if there was also a difference in tone in the PMs, especially early in the game, that seems to be another thing. It does seem like a disclosure requirement could be good in avoiding this, though even that is a gray area, isn't it? What does it mean to know somebody "in real life"? What if you met them through webdip? What if you've just played with them a lot before? Etc.

There are a lot of gray areas I think, for which reason I think metagame punishments should probably be restricted to two situations: (1) Two people play together a lot and (virtually) always ally or help each other, even against interest, or (2) somebody demonstrably brings in extra-game influences, such as a boss playing with an employee and threatening consequences at work in press.

The above paragraph shouldn't really be read as a complaint against the mods, though. I think it's a tough issue. I just think the problems with inconsistencies or impossibilities that would result from trying to take the rule literally make it one that should be enforced lightly.

Yeah, I've never been complimented on my brevity. Sorry. I get the urge to eliminate metagaming, or at least make sure no players at the board are coming in at an information disadvantage (so everyone is metagaming with the same info). I just think it is relatively impossible outside of anon games with very terse press. As I said, I've been much more influenced by past games I have played with someone than any RL relationship, but I certainly didn't state in public press at the beginning of the game that "Player X had misordered like 4 times in the last game we played and I wouldn't trust him with my pet rock, much less to be a useful ally"

The problem is it isimpossible to define exactly what meta gaming is. Once you know the game most people will be able to just know right from wrong with respect to metagaming. If you're new here and if you're maybe finding the site with some friends, as many seem to do, then you maybe can't see what you are doing wrong. I think there is some evidence to this based on the above few posts.

I don't have an answer for this, but it appears to be a fairly recurring problem.

Krellin, saying you goy a light senyence is not a reason to get a harsher sentence. What sort of. World do uou live in.

"I made it clear that I cheated in the eyes of the admins..."

Typical CHILDISH apology. This is NOT a confession that you UNDERSTAND you did wrong. You are blaming the mods for catching you. Like a child, you still refuse to accept and admit guilt. I f my kid offered such an apology, I would *increase* their punishment.

Well, it is a good thing I am not your kid.

My point is that the admins are the ones that enforce the letter of the law. It doesn't matter what I thought the law meant. What matters is that they enforce the rules and I got punished.

Of course, arguing with you is a waste of time I don't know why I feel the need to reply to you.

@erist - The key to acceptable versus unacceptable metagaming is "equal opportunity and information". Using a player's habits that can be equally checked by all players in the game is fair. So too are online friendships where anyone may have made that connection on this site. Admitedly. that puts noobs at a slight disadvantage against established members, but only for a short time and most of the noobs don't play at the established player level games anyhow. But RL friends get to know things about each other that could never be learned online. They know what the person's real persona and faults are, not just what little leaks through in the forums and games. They know how to read a person's tells and see the person in real life, possibly even discussing the game (which is not against the rules so long as it is a full press game) and therefore have an additional advantage of reading body language. That is why it is important to have a full disclosure policy.

Draug: I get that, and I agree with the "goal" and even a strict implementation. But I still think the information asymmetry is far bigger than people might think (especially experienced players on this site vs non-experienced players - simply scanning through games has no comparison to playing with someone, getting a feel for their press style, etc and knowing people know each other IRL doesn't really suggest that they will do anything. And some people would even argue that /that/ is part of the game as well (Diplomacy as the meta-entity that justifies itself). I think there's an example somewhere in the pouch of a person knowing that one of the players in the game was sleeping with another player's wife and thus knew they would be more likely to not stab that player for example, or something. In that case, why not go the vdil route and make people enter in all their RL relationships explicitly so everyone can see them. My feelings are 1) cheating is silly 2) it's a game, not played for money, why cheat? 3) nearly every decision made in diplomacy is being made in a grey area of knowledge, etc. I'm not even sure knowing someone in real life is not a /disadvantage/. There could be many. Staying allied to a sinking ship, not believing so and so would stab you, over thinking things, etc etc. Metagaming is an interesting discussion on its own. As far as this thread goes, obviously many of us have come into the site playing with friends and not known there was anything "bad" about that because it's the way we play all kinds of board games in our life, and some people have perhaps pushed that further than others and/or cheated by working to someone else's advantage.

How many games did smcheatbride and subutai play together? Goes a course beyond "knowing ones habits" Draug. Amazing how they always survive together...

Draug - let's you and I play, say, 15 games together and make sure we both either primarily survive Or, rarely die together...let's see how the mods treat us....

In asnwer to #2, people cheat because they get a jones out of it. People cheat at cards even when no money is on the line. They get a feel of guilty pleasure knowing they pulled a fast one. It's like telling a tall tale but keeping it just under the bar so that people believe you. You get to tell the tale and be the center of attention yet nobody questions it's veracity. Getting away with cheating gives people who do that the same thrill.

Mind, I don't do it because I prefer the thrill of knowing I beat the other players fair and square (although I'm not against lying as that is part of the game) but I believe that pushing the boundaries is a good thing. However, once those boundaries are set by the mods, you find another area that is greyer. Now, declaring your RL friendships and relations is set by the mods. So don't push the area and accept it.

But the RL to online relationships is more akin to a F2F where two of the players are somehow telepathically linked (I know, scifi/far-fetched, but still). Those players have an unfair advantage in that they can communicate without the other players seeing them go off to a corner or another room. So having to reveal this mystical ability would be a requirement. Doesn't mean they can't play, but they have to let the rest know they can do this so the others can look for tells (like facial expressions when they are linked) only in online you can't even see that to know, so you just have to trust they will play fair and be willing to do whatever iut takes. to get the solo or stop the other from soloing. To me, it is less an issue in WTA than PPSC, but it still can become an unbreakable alliance that may as well be the same person playing both positions.

krellin - Not disagreeing at all. They were metagaming in the bad way and get caught. In fact, I'm pointing out that thewy should have stated it up front to begin with. I like that rule. But I also think we need a means of backing out when the game starts and we find out two players know each other in RL. We are already commited at that point so have to play them or get a CD on our record.

Hey Krellin, remember when you told somebody they had no credibility moving forward?

Are you even aware of how deliciously ironic that is?