I think you might have misread my name... ;)

D.

Seriously, though, I think it is useful to bring these cases to the general attention. I am not asking for any specific intervention, but for example, in the game in question, it is useful for me to know that these two players are allied in different games, because this would seem to make it much less probable that one of them should backstab the other. For the players involved in the other two games, seeing this thread might likewise be useful, as they will be able to take all factors into consideration when deciding how to handle their games from now on.

D.

Turkey:France, Italy:Russia. Those do not seem your "typical" alliances. But stranger things have happened. I have to say that I agree with Canute to a certain extent. Metagaming, while not "appropriate" can not be avoided to a certain extent.
For example, when you are allied with someone, and they backstab you at a most critical moment, aren't you a little more likely to suspect them next time? And if you ally with someone, and it's a very successful, game-long alliance, you're probably going to feel a little hurt if they stab you in a future game. This being said, metagaming, to some extent, is almost inevitable. And it actually plays a part in the whole diplomatic situation.
I wish we were all computers and could respond to betrayal without emotion, but we're not, and we can't.
I think the most important thing is to remember that, regardless of your position on the hall of fame, Diplomacy is a game. As such, it's important to have fun. If you're not having fun, go CD. (A terrible reason to do so, in my opinion, but heck, people do it.) If you can just accept that as part of "all's fair in love, war, and diplomacy" then do so.

I'm not saying that certain things (e.g. multiaccount, socially engineering another account, and things of that nature) aren't bad, I'm just saying that the whole "they're allies too often" argument is about the worst argument to base a "metagaming" accusation on.
I'll leave you with this last thought: in the late 17th century, people tossed around the name "witch", and in the mid-20th century, everyone was a "communist." Perhaps the latest incarnation of this social phenomenon is the name "metagamer." Hmmm...

(Alright, that last part may have sounded a bit more harsh than I meant it to. I'm not saying any of you are idly tossing around accusations just because you don't like someone. Take that thought on the most friendly level as possible, please. :-)

Lidhaegn, I take your point. I would like to point out, though, that Ithere is a difference between "they are allies too often" and "they are allied in all games they play".

Anyway, as I wrote in my previous post, I am not asking for "intervention". I understand that up to a point "meta-gaming" is natural, as in your example of the backstabbing. When this natural phenomenon passes a certain - personal, arguable - threshold, I think it is useful to highlight the specific case in the forum. This can help other players take the "constant alliance between player x and y" factor into consideration in their games, and by doing this should hopefully discourage this kind of behaviour (if people know from the beginning that player x and y are allied in all their games and react to this, then at least part of their advantage is lost).

(no problem, lidhaegn, and no offence taken. And as for going CD as you mentioned, forget about it, I'll play it to the end and get as much as I can from that game)

In order to prevent a repeat of McCarthism or the salem witch trials. We need better software measures that detect all forms of "meta" tampering.

Starting first with "multi-accounters", namely one person holding two or more accounts playing the same game. That I think we can detect based on various heuristics such as correlation of login times and correlation of IP+browser cookies. The latter I would be happy to code up and contribute to the code base, if Kesta let's me.

The more general let's ally because we are friends. I think we need an automatic list of generated stats on the number of times X, and Y are in the same game and number of times X and Y attacked each other versus supported each other. This should be used as evidence against or for cases where meta gaming is occurring. When such evidence is made public we can clearly support claims of tampering.

If such mechanisms are found robust we can even create "black lists" that prevent say user A from joining a game with user B if they had a previous history of being meta accounters/gamers.

That's scary, DaveMorano... I still think healthy discussion on the forum is the solution.

if they ally in all their games, it is probably a case of multiaccounting, not metagaming. two different person can't ally like that, such a case is never heard of

lidhaegn.. Italy/Russia is a very common and fantastic alliance. They share many common enemies and don't have as many trust issues because they aren't physically adjacent for a while.

I've probably said this 50 times in the past, but it seems someone always wants a definition for metagaming.

A player is seen to be metagaming when they take influences from outside the individual game (including other games) into the individual game. This is a fairly vague definition, so I'll include examples below. It's debatable whether or not metagaming should be prohibited, but I am personally against it, and I've explained many times.

Of course it's impossible to completely eliminate metagaming as lidhaegn explained, but that does not make the pursuit of it's minimization any less worthwhile.

Example A: Two players are husband and wife. In every game they join they immediately and unconditionally ally, because they would rather not damage their marital relationship. This is metagaming, and it puts the rest of the players in the game at a severe disadvantage because they do not share this same relationship.

Example B: Two players work out a deal in which they help each other win in two separate games. This is metagaming, and has the same effect as the previous example.

Example C: Two players find that they work very well together having just peacefully resolved a game in a two way draw between them. The next game they encounter each other, they immediately co-operate. This is metagaming and has the same effects as the former two scenarios.

It's apparent that Example C seems much less 'illegal' and it's extremely hard for a person to ignore their past experiences, for how else would they learn and improve their diplomatic game? It is true that Example C is potentially less damaging, because in this newest game, the other players may share similar relationships, so there may or may not be an inherent disadvantage.

However, this is not always the case. While metagaming is more acceptable in face to face games where it's typically a group of friends who all know each other and share the same relationships, it can add an unfair element to online play here. This is because other players in the game do not share the same relationship as the metagamers and have not necessarily been given the same opportunity to establish a similar relationship. Instead, they are put at a disadvantage from the start of the game, and the metagaming cartel may be unbreakable and unbeatable, especially to unsuspecting players.

There are several solutions to this that do not involve publications of personal information, or blacklisting and alienation. Most involve awareness and a willingness to minimize one's own metagaming.

Firstly, avoiding all cases similar to Examples A and B. There is absolutely no excuse for these forms of metagaming. If you know someone else on this site in real life, be prepared to play with them in a similar fashion as you would with any other stranger on the site. That means stabbing them, coercing against them, or whatever it may be.

Secondly, to avoid Example C... you could make an effort to memorize other players purely by country names. This is what I do, and it works quite well. I hardly remember the usernames of people I've played in the past. Alternatively, if you adopt a rigorous play to win style then you'll recognize that alliances are due more to circumstance and necessity rather than how well you got along with them in the past. Be prepared to stab and be stabbed by your most loyal past allies.

As well, if anyone's willing to implement the option... anonymous games would also almost completely eliminate metagaming. However, as Kestas has finished most of his development, it would have to come from another php developer.

basically i'm saying that you're right, but it is rather a case of multiaccounting

Chrispminis, thanks for the very comprehensive analysis :)
As I mentioned before, I think that discussion on the forum also helps in all the three cases you describe. If I know from the forum that players X and Y are married (case A), seem to have an agreement involving more games (case B), or even "simply" seem to ally in every game they play (case C), at least I will know from the very beginning of the game that I cannot expect them to work one against the other.

For example, in the game I am playing in, I am England, and the two players in question are France and Russia. In the first phases, I had to decide whether to ally with Germany or France, who were fighting with each other. Had I known that the player playing France was in this kind of "multi-game agreement" with Turkey, I would have helped Germany eliminate him immediately, instead of working with him.

Alamothe, this could indeed be multiaccounting. But based on how they played in the beginnning, and on the fact that someone in the forum had already made it known that Led Julio had proposed him/her a pact involving helping each other over more games, I think it is more probable that we are in "metagaming type B" as defined by Chrispminis.

I find this whining about metagaming annoying. Why don't you just use these arguments to convince the other players, that an alliance against the 2 is needed instead of discussing that with the whole world?
Then it is not even a problem anymore, if you are wrong, as lying is a diplomatic act anyway.

Because it's only the three of us at the moment, as the others have already been eliminated.

Hey Chrispminis, could I get a wife like the one you mention in example A. Mine has backstabbed me in almost every game we have played.

I have to take issue with example C. What about the opposite example. A player has backstabbed you in the past 10 games. Should you ally with him in the 11th because you don't want to take those outside influences into the game? Do you purposely not remember his name so you don't prejudge him later? Would you do that in a face-to-face game?

Diplomacy is not about strategy or tactics. Its about outguessing your opponent. Knowledge about how trustworthy a player is, whether he tends to backstab early or late, whether he plays to win or for points and the strategies he prefers are all useful knowledge. To go without is like playing poker without knowing when your opponent bluffs.

IMHO metagaming is not using out-of-game relationships, rather it is the game version of insider trading - using out-of-game knowledge not available to everyone. If I online game with a friend, we have a relationship that no one else knows of and that is a no-no. If I just ally with the same guy I again and again, anyone who checks my game history can see that and anyone who doesn't takes their chances.

Web-based gaming makes this history easy to find and check so this is much more like a face-to-face game than a postal game. The history is out there. If you start a game, check it out. Does it look like the player sets up the gullible for a fall? Does he have a frequent ally that is in this game? Is there a usual opening move? Is there a player that tends to drop when the going gets bad? Spend 15 minutes at the start of each game to figure out the people involved.

Diplomacy is self correcting. When you first started to play on a board with friends the winner was always the guy who backstabbed first. Then everyone stopped trusting him and the torch passed. Without the knowledge though that can never happen. In the same way, if you check the history and game with it in mind, players will find allying with the same person again and again is no longer an advantage.

ldrut, I think we share the same definition for metagaming. And I see your point about checking game histories. If it was a common practice, that would definitely greatly mitigate the effects of Type C metagaming. However, if you check my games, you'll find you have no access to the histories of many of my games as they are very old, and the histories of most of the rest don't even feature units and must be inferred. Of course, this is just a flaw with games that preceded the fully functional history viewing, but it's still there. Not to mention the fact that you can't see the extensive press and negotiation that went to each interaction in each game. It's a LOT of insider information there.

I would not say that the winner was always the guy who stabbed first, or that it necessarily changed afterwards. Trust is more situational than historical in Diplomacy. The winner is the one who stabs the best and gets stabbed the worst. I don't stab my neighbour because they stabbed me in a few games, I stab them because I know that I'll have the support of another country and they've foolishly left their centres open for the taking.

I also believe that face to face games and the online games here at phpDip are very different, as I've explained in my previous post. I wouldn't mind Type C metagaming or even Type B if you played a series of games with the same players here on phpDip. But it's different when you play different people in every game, even if there's only one new player.

I'm not saying you should trust the guy who stabbed you ten games in a row. I wouldn't trust anyone. I would ask you to try not to trust the guy who allied with you ten games in row, and hope that he doesn't trust you either. By all means, check histories, and deduce what you can, but don't let those deductions give you a false sense of security. Nobody knows my history better than me, and if I know you like to check histories...

Anyways, I realize metagaming is impossible to eliminate completely along my definition of metagaming, but that does not make the pursuit of it's minimization any less worthwhile. I would much rather a stronger definition of metagaming with an impossible goal, only closer approaches, than a less rigorous definition that offered an attainable, but incomplete, final goal.

OK, but I still want that wife that doesn't backstab me.