Unfortunately we have no rules about meta-gaming, just multi-accounting. Until we get some there's no point telling anyone about meta-gaming because it's technically not a problem

Okay Kestas, it's your site, so you make the rules. Thanks for replying though.

I think finding enough evidence that an alliance is unbreakable should be good enough to ban (or maybe temporarily disable?) an account. It's a judgment call, yes, but I think much of this site, or what it should be, is based on reputation anyway, so I don't see a big problem.

I can definitely say that if I was in a game with unbreakable metagamer allies, I would not enjoy being raped by the pair of them.

There should at least be a rule against pre-arranged teams - even if its hard to prove. The way the rules are at the moment it gives meta-gamers the impression that what they are doing is okay. I told one of the players I knew what they were doing and he just said "that's diplomacy". But now I can't even say "that's cheating", because it isn't - technically.

Well spyman

Just do the 'name and shame' dealio if you think its wholly necessary then. We've already gone over why banning for pre-arranged alliances is both unfeasible and an unteneble position principly.

The costs of the system would outweigh its possible benefits.


For the really engaged, skilled players who would prefer not to play with possible meta-gamers, the name-shame policy is more than enough of a methodology.

I don't think they should be banned. They might not even realize its cheating. I can also see how false accusations could occur.
I see what you mean, though, about costs and benefits.

Unbreakable alliances made in the course of the game are OK.
Alliances of any sort made before the game starts is unethical.

One site has a declaration that is mandatory before each game that each player has to acknowledge. It would be a great place to remind people of the baiscs of ethics on the game: something like
The player is asked to acknowledge that in order to play the following is expected:
a. that the player has only one position in the game
b. that the player has no pre arranged alliances with players herein
c. that all games are to be treated as separate and
cross game deals are unethial
d. the player is expected to get orders in and play the position till eliminated without dropping out except in extraordinary circumstances and is to inform the moderators/players of any resignation.
e. foul language and personal attacks are not welcome
f. remember that we play the game to have fun and make it fun for others.
or something less wordy than that.

Edi I totally agree. Terms and conditions - then click "I agree" to proceed. It won't stop everyone, but it would certainly help.
I have been trying to convince the developers of facebook Attack (Risk) to introduce the same measure. I wouldn't all of these problems go away - but it would stop a lot of it. I am not a fan of punitive measures, when a simple "please respect other players" will suffice.
Cheating and abuse from players is a much bigger problem on that site than here. Luckily Diplomacy seems to attract a better class of person than Risk does on Facebook.
One difference though between Facebook Risk and Diplomacy. Risk is live and a game is over in 30 minutes (you can just move on if you have a bad experience). Diplomacy can last several days or even weeks.

let us set up a series of 2 games for all MetaGamers.
They are allowed to join as 2's and 3's and play in those 2 games, and let us see how bizarre alliances like A-T and R-G crop up.

Why not promote the 'Team' games? People who join with their friends should be encouraged to play team games.

Yup...things get funny when Italy, Austria and Turkey form a team. Where does Turkey go?

Naming the m-g's would certainly limit their effectiveness.

who are said 2 players?

If I am one of the mods you sent an email to, it never came through.

Edi's list is excellent and covers everything I think, the problem is converting that list of bullet points into practical rules which can be implemented

Lol @ jerkface... the only reason you said that is because your mad that you got beat

I also think that we should have team games. I would play in those and then the other countries wouldn't get mad at me.

I do remember seeing a team game organized before. (One with recognized unbreakable alliances determind at the outset)
That would be a fun beneficial option.

If you must metagame and can't bear to stab your friend or whatever relation, then try keeping to organized team games.

Though it's not technically against the rules, it's terrible sportsmanship and you don't want a reputation of being a poor sport. It will cause you much grief in the future.

Dangermouse, I wrote your email down wrong. You should get it now.

I'm with Jerkface on this... And sniffy, plain and simple you're an asshole. Everyone else playing that game got cheated/swindled out of our entry points, and it was by far the worst game of any sort I've played... period...

I've enjoyed and had fun in every other game I've played on this site except this one, which happened to be the most expensive one I'd bought into, which then also happened to be corrupted by you and b-ryce meta-gaming.

I only regret that you didn't admit the fact that you were meta-gaming (cheating) soon enough for us to stop you. Oh, and I also regret that players aren't banned for this and there was no repercussion. I feel cheated out of a large number of my points, and that this is a serious structural flaw in this website/game.

I will never play any game with b-ryce or 1800sniffy, and I recommend to the rest of the community that they do not either.

I'm happy that none of my other games seem to have this problem, however, this has been an incredibly negative experience, and made me question if I want to continue playing (as I'm still in my first dozen dip games ever.)

WOW i am completely honored thank you ^_^

You whalen are one dramatic person LOL " made me question if i want to continue playing" HA

I'm glad i made your game miserable... you were getting mad at me when i didn't even know i was doing anything wrong in the first place.

I have emailed the moderators about two players I think are blatant meta-gamers. If they affirm my suspicions I will name and shame.

You should have realized what you were doing was wrong, sniffy , and worse you were a jerk about it and insulted Jerkface, whalen and I. At least we didn't have to use a crutch

LOL a crutch? We were being polite until you posted on the forums that we were unintelligent. So we acted the part =D congratz

Oh by the way it was 4 on 2 when you guys found out so dont even talk

I love talking on the forums =D

As is VERY evident...

=D It's actually just as fun as playing the game

Can i make a thread just for people to talk on and one question... are you allowed to curse on the forums?

and you 2 had a lot more SC's than us not to mention all 3 of us were fighting each other. You had a huge advantage off the bat. Numbers don't matter, SC's do

lol? you guys wernt fighting eachother when i told you.

and it was during spring of 1903=P so we didnt have 2 more Sc's

Sniffy, why have you invoked my name when I made no presence in this thread?

lol yeah you did =P

"I think finding enough evidence that an alliance is unbreakable should be good enough to ban (or maybe temporarily disable?) an account. It's a judgment call, yes, but I think much of this site, or what it should be, is based on reputation anyway, so I don't see a big problem."

True enough. Pardon me.

You are pardoned