Its an unavoidable kind of metagaming, that I don't think is frowned upon. It also happens when you know that someone can be a reliable ally, and you decided to work with them on that basis. That can cause others to be upset, though, if you ally with them game after game.

there is no such thing as a definition of metagaming, and metagaming is not recognized as a legal offense on the site. however, mods do have the right to ban you for whatever reason they can come up with (unfortunately it has happened)

Haven't some people been banned for letting someone live in one game in exchange for that person letting them live in another game that theyre in together?

The BESM crisis? Yeah I think the meta was banned

alamothe, relax, people have only been banned for multiaccounting(99%of banned members) , forum bombing(one person) and (in only one case i think )gross over the top metagaming. its not like the mods are power mad maniacs running around banning people all the time.
i think Dj bents situation was fine, there is a clear line between knowing a player ( knowing their strengths and weaknesses, knowing what they feel about you due to a previous game and their likely reaction/opening moves ) and cross gaming deals/pre game start organized alliances based of RL friendships.

BESM crisis?

BESM was threaten to be killed in one game, unless he didn't killed him in another game.

good point Dipper, that would be the inverse situation. and i too would certainly join in on the frowning upon game after game alliances.

@alamothe - i know meta gaming is not a "legal offense" or whatever, but i think there is a general consensus that if i help you in this game, you help me in that game, quid pro quo kind of gaming between players is unacceptable/looked upon as poor sportsmanship. i had my opinion in this, and was curious if it resonated with a larger consensus about how to play the game. what do you think about the situation i described?

I have been playing diplomacy for many years. Always the way Edi likes it - face to face. With usually the same people - more or less. The point being that 5 or 6 out of the seven players in a game had multiple game experience with each other. Could be close friends, etc. It is not meta-gaming that you play with people you know unless you make decisions based on something beyond the board and that game. In poker you play the player as much as the cards. Same is true for diplomacy. If I am a cut throat and never do a thing I promise and play one move at a time game. Somebodies going to use that to their advantage if they can - it is call strategy. Chess players play a much tighter game against a good player that a bad player. I recently play a game with the same player back to back. I did want you do in the game, eventually I turned on him after a lot of trust had been built. And then tried my hardest to eliminate him from the game. Very next game I start he signs on. We are allies and its all good until he knifes me the back and now he is doing great. Thing is, there was no meta-gaming because we are experienced mature players. In each case we did what that individual game required us to do. History aside. Nothing should be done in a game that does not support your ultimate goal. To the extend that you do not do what is completely necessary is a short coming on the players part.

Diplomacy in reality and in this game is about strategy and being emotionless about the things that must be done. To eliminate desire for anything except the outcome. In this respect a good player must have a Zen-ful attitude toward his play. Very much like the martial artist approaches a confrontation.

Sorry about all the Blah, Blah, Blah!

I would define metagaming as working with another player, across games, to gain unfair advantage.

Dj's use-case does not provide for any advantage. It's not a case of metagaming, simply a case of one (or both) players being crappy at Diplomacy.

If you have someone around and you know they are irrational it is always a good idea to get idea to get rid of them first.

@lvo - agreed!

Edi defines things differently, between cross-gaming and metagaming, and it is a good definition. Cross-gaming is straightforwardly not allowable. Unacceptable meta-gaming is something like playing with friends and then making alliances with them because they are friends, or playing in a way to try to get a better result next game, at the expense of the result in this one (eg being a blind ally so that that person will trust you again). Acceptable meta-gaming is this kind of thing, where you notice a players traits and then play knowing what they are. This is acceptable because it is unavoidable.

The leaders of Europe at the time probably had spies finding out each others' characteristics so its not exactly unrealistic.

As I'm always willing to learn can someone clarify these situations for me.....?

Q1 - A is being ganged up on by players B & C. A tells B that he (A) lived with C and he (B) will get crushed. This is untrue and was meant to cast doubt into mind of B. Is this meta-gaming?

Q2 - Player B from above decides to view last 30 odd games of A & C and notices they have never played together and deduces (correctly) that A was a lying schmuck. Was looking into histories Metagaming?

Some people on this site may disagree with my opinion, but I don't believe that any of that is metagaming. I am new to this site, but I am a veteran of face-to-face games. Not only is none of what you mentioned in any way frowned down on, but it is essential to playing. Knowing someone's tendencies is just knowing your opponent. In most face-to-face games, you do know something of your opponents when you sit down to play. Maybe Austria went out with Germany's sister. Maybe that makes them friendlier, maybe that makes them more antagonistic. It doesn't really matter because Russia is gonna start spreading rumors about them (which may or may not be true) just to serve his own agenda. Take what your opponents say with a grain of salt and serve your own agenda. But, in my opinion, none of that is metagaming.

"All's fair in love and war"
I dont really know how else to sum it up for everyone. Anything you have in a game you use (even if it might seem a little dirty or frowned upon)

I don't think metagaming in djbent's case can really be avoided when it happens. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to minimize metagaming, but it's important to recognize that practically, minor forms of metagaming will always exist.

As a general rule, I don't usually remember specifically which players I play with, and I try to only refer to them by their country assignment. This, combined with a poor memory in general means that, barring a particularly traumatic experience, I don't really remember who's wronged me or who I've wronged in the past. I also try to act situationally, and not historically, and I think I do a good job of minimizing metagaming.

I had no idea someone was ever banned for metagaming. As far as I knew it was only ever multi accounting and one case of forum bombing.

This whole idea that the sites "law" doesn't say all metagaming will you get you banned and thus there is nothing wrong is a serious problem. The mods have discression and should ban as they see fit any behaviour they could consider "cheating". I think that would clear things up, plus we could get more cheaters banned.

so djbent is cheating and should be banned?

This is why people have requested playing an 'anonymous' game, where you don't know the identities of the players until the game is concluded... you work with england and france and germany, not Edi and fortknox and alamothe...

That would REALLY help stave off metagaming...

IF the mods feel his behaviour qualifies as cheating, using their discression, then yes. Of course as you see above they don't, its just to make it clear that severe metaing can still result in a ban.