your idea of metagaming seems to be a quite different one than mine

when I join a game, I only check for the turn lengths and the price
and I do NOT check who is in it, or how good they are before the game has started


and, most importantly, when I join a game, I never ask a friend of mine to join the game as well.

alliances that are decided on before the game starts is absolute douchebaggery

the skill of diplomacy lies in your ability to form alliances with whomever you have around you.
calling a friend to help you out makes that skill obsolute.

imagine you play basketball, but you lack jumpingskills
you will not be allowed to bring a step-ladder to the game either


the one who wins the game should be the best player, not the player who cheated in the least detectable way

What's the difference between creating an alliance in the first turn, and creating one before it?

M-g is, IMHO, you and I teaming up in a number of games as a plan to benefit us both.

It should be dealt with by the community. If I always team up with Jacob, for instance(stop laughing Jacob), then somebody credible within this community is bound to notice. They then blow the whistle. The chronic teammates are identified and duly eliminated by spring 1906 in every subsequent game.

Multi-accounting is a different situation altogether. This is when one calls in the Mod Squad.

@akroma - my idea of metagaming is the site's definition of it since I play on this site...

I don't go into games with alliances already formed, but I do play games with friends and family. I let everyone know about it when I do.

Also, what is so amazing about a two-player alliance? There are seven players on the board and 5 > 2. If the other players don't do something about an obvious alliance then shame on them - they deserve to lose...

I just don't understand why people seem to equate alliances with cheating. I DO agree that you should never go into a game with an alliance already formed. Again, I think people are just overly sensitive in this area.

@mapleleaf - I love your definition. And, although it was difficult, I did eventually stop laughing :P

I have teamed up with people in multiple games before, but it was never a plan beforehand, and it was never a plan to benefit us both...(insert evil grin).

It is incumbent on other players to recognize dangerous alliances and eliminate them.

Aren't the mods supposed to enforce the site's own rules and policies? If that is the case then why are they talking about banning people for situations that don't even fall within the site's own definition of meta-gaming.
We're not :S
The only thing we've considered is direct cross-game threats...

i agree with Jacob. mods must not ban for metagaming, or they will set a dangerous precedent. instead, they should follow site's official policy stated in the faq.

there's a lot of talking about banning for meta recently only because the current group of mods feel that metagaming is as bad as multiaccounting. i believe that this does not represent the view of the whole community. it could also have happened that all mods feel that metagaming is fine

i think it does represent the view of the majority of the community and that should be enough

Maybe it would be helpful if there was a better clarification of what actually constitutes metagaming and how that activity would be responded to.

I agree with the site's definition - I don't agree with the people who think that each game should be approached as if it were isolated within it's own little coccoon (sp?) that nothing could touch. I mean c'mon, when you start looking at it that way then even bringing YOUR OWN experience to the game could be construed as metagaming.

I just think the definition of metagaming has become fuzzy in the eyes of the community and it has led to increased murmuring and accusations. I also think this is affecting the mods and leading them away from the site's definition of metagaming.

I could be wrong, but I just want to raise the issue at least.

my definition of metagaming is going into a game with a preset unbreakable alliance

I think alot of the metagaming you are talking about Jacob is fine. I take players personalities into accout of course. I've even played a game with you with two of your friends and it was fine. In fact, if anything you guys were out for eachother.

I think the idea is things being unfair. If someone walks into a game with a preset alliance then another player might feel they didn't have a chance because they went in with no baggage. You may be right that 2 people is against 5, but it rarely plays out like that. If the meta-gamers are England and France, I don't think Germany is going to be thanking his lucky stars that he has four ready made anti-meta-allies.

I think anything that takes away from a game individually is a problem. Like purposely going for a strong second in one game to establish a reputation as a good ally is kind of a problem. Its ok if you have a reputation as a good ally, but if your gameplay reflects you trying to craft that reputation then thats a problem. Its a fine line true, but it has its distinctions. Thats what makes it so hard for the mods to punish metas.

Trying to craft that reputation, to what end?

If looking at a players past is so forbidden, then why the hell does the site let you do it and why do we keep point rankings and display a persons current points as part of the site. Clearly, these capabilities built into the system prove that using a person's history to evaluate how you handle them is not forbidden.

surely the worse case of meta gaming is going into a game with a friend for the sole purpose of wiping everyone else out but havin a draw, that means they don't mtake into consideration which countries they are or actually what is the best game plan to take. if u need a buddy in order to draw a game then i think the point of the game is lost. U can have an ally but there is always an element of mistrust however u play and thats a big part of the game.

also surely its not fun to win soley on the fact that u had a buddy in there with u, wheres the pride?

Jacob, there are clearly different levels of metagaming. The sites "definition" is not really a definition. Perhaps it should be clarified... or perhaps we can use common sense. In it, we're given a vague notion that anything from outside an individual game that influences your play in that game is metagaming, and one example. I do accept that vague notion, because I think that's an accurate depiction. Obviously though, there will be a gradient to the severity of metagaming.

"Also, what is so amazing about a two-player alliance? There are seven players on the board and 5 > 2. If the other players don't do something about an obvious alliance then shame on them - they deserve to lose..."

You say that, but would you say the same of a two player "alliance" formed by a multi accounter? There are still 5 other players, but they're indubitably at an enormous disadvantage, especially since they probably don't know they're up against an unbreakable alliance.

The real scourge of metagaming doesn't come from simple notekeeping and history checks and looking at people's rankings... it really comes in the form of:
1. Cross-board gaming. I will do something for you in this game, provided you do something for me in that game. Can you not see the disadvantage this puts on the other players in the game who do not share a similar cross-board relationship with a player in the game? This isn't even a phpDip rule... this is and has been a rule in F2F and Postal play for a long time.
2. Outside relationships: How fair is it to be in a game when a husband and wife are playing who absolutely refuse to stab each other and form an unbreakable alliance based on their marriage... especially when nobody else even knows about this? This basically creates a two-player block with the similar influence of a two player multi accounter. Nobody else in the game can hope to gain a similar advantage because they're not married to those people. Similar things may happen between other IRL family or friends, or even long-term buddies on the site who refuse to stab each other as they would anybody else.

I don't really think the issue is whether or not those two instances should be allowed... the real issue is that it's much harder to prove that those two instances are happening than it is to prove someone is multi accounting. I am loathe to ban innocent players so obviously mods exercise extreme caution when dealing with such cases. As such, so far, common sense has prevailed, and there have been no bannings due to metagaming. Simple discussion has solved all of the issues so far, and I don't see myself taking any official action against metagaming any time soon.

This is no license to meta-game. While some forms might be acceptable because they'd be honestly ridiculous to fight off, others will be against the rules, or patently unsportsmanlike. I think we can all use common sense judgement here to determine at what level you can metagame. I mean, common sense is what tells us that the more minor forms are acceptable... and common sense is what tells us the more rigorous form of metagaming is hardly better than multi accounting because it puts the other players at an equal disadvantage.

I think there is only one time I 'meta-gamed'. It is when I was betrayed by Cubes in one game and he joined another game, I just happened to be in. He was the first country to be on my enemies list. It wasn't meta-gaming so much as it was I knew he would betray me again

Jacob - I agree.

Nothing wrong with looking at someone's past games or something.

What is stupid is playing like a robot so that you may as well be a multi

"Jacob, there are clearly different levels of metagaming. The sites "definition" is not really a definition. Perhaps it should be clarified... or perhaps we can use common sense. In it, we're given a vague notion that anything from outside an individual game that influences your play in that game is metagaming, and one example. I do accept that vague notion, because I think that's an accurate depiction. Obviously though, there will be a gradient to the severity of metagaming" [ChrisP]

@chrisp - You've illustrated exactly my concern. You are reading the site's definition differently than I am. You say the site defines m-g as anything from outside the game affecting how you play it.

Here is the site's definition again along with the example:
"A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one. The classic example is threatening a stronger player in a weak game with a country in a different game where the tables are turned."

That reads to me like m-g is not just "anything" outside the game, it is a "something," and that something is another game you are currently in.

I think I have a good handle on what common sense dictates is metagaming and what isn't. However, I'm beginning to see that others' "common sense" view is shifting to include things that I find totally acceptable.

Then when I saw another thread in which possible bannings appear to be seriously discussed before all the information is even in I begin to be a little worried.

And here's another thing - you can NEVER take what anyone says in a game completely seriously because they could always be saying something purposefully in order to achieve a desired effect.

Here's an example: Say I want Russia to attack England and I am France. Couldn't I tell Russia that England and I always play together in real life and we are going to play together in this game too? Perhaps I think that by doing that I can somehow persuade Russia to attack England. Now, it's a big pack of lies, but then Russia goes and starts a thread about how I'm a dirty rotten meta-gamer and then the mods look at the messages and determine that I am.

Now, that scenario is unlikely and I don't foresee ever using that strategy, BUT my main concern here is that I don't want to see mods getting trigger-happy about banning people for meta-gaming AND I think it needs to be defined better.

Current interpretations are using logic that would also render things like looking at past games meta-gaming.

I will think about how it could be defined better so that it won't just seem like I'm being critical without offerring solutions =)

Well Jacob, to be honest, I'm not "reading" the sites definition. The issue of metagaming predates any written definition here on the site, and my policy against metagaming was formulated before such a definition, and far before I became a moderator. I'm not doing this because I'm a moderator, I'm doing this because this is what I actually think is right.

Here's how I read the FAQ quotation.
Definition: A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one. Example: The classic example is threatening a stronger player in a weak game with a country in a different game where the tables are turned.

See, while the example is specific, it clearly does not address other serious forms of metagaming, and the definition is in my view, pretty open. What does it matter if it's technically metagaming that someone looks at rankings if it's not frowned upon? Nobody's ever going to get banned or even criticized for minor metagaming, so I don't see the issue with calling it metagaming...

I assure you that moderators will not get trigger happy. It was never the idea to have us as some sort of presiding power, by which you must all fear our authority... We're simply here to help the community. I thought it was to be a pretty informal and equal relationship. Let me tell you, our worst nightmare is to punish an innocent player. If you read the e-mail thread in which kestas announced our positions as moderators, you can tell right away that our initial fears were false positives, and the tone was set as such. When figlesquidge was made a mod later, he was just as squeamish, and would get second opinions (sometimes fifth opinions!) on every decision he made. There's usually discussion, even in some of the most blatant cases of multi accounting.

In areas with no precedent set, we've always deferred to the community. Disagreements will always come up, but I hope we can all reach an acceptable compromise. I just didn't think it would actually involve invoking definitions and the concept of legal precedent... but perhaps the site's grown enough that formal rigour is required?

Your example is valid and is why it makes it extremely difficult to identify metagaming. This is what I've been talking about. The real issue with serious metagaming isn't, in my mind, whether it's unfair, but whether or not you can seriously enforce it without the very real danger of false positives. This has been my stance before I was a moderator, and persists now. This forum doesn't have sticky threads, or even an accessible archive, but I assure you, these issues have been debated pretty consistently throughout phpDip's history, and pre-date moderators.

Tis true - and unluckily for him Chrisp is the only one I have an msn address for so he has to take the brunt of my questioning!

I don't have a problem with what Jacob is talking about in the opening post. What I do have a problem with is pre-game collusion, whereby two or more players enter a game knowing that they will have an unbreakable alliance before the powers have even been allocated.
An earlier post asked "what is the difference between forming an alliance before the game and during the game". There is a big difference. The odds are definitely skewered in favour of the the former. It's like playing a poker game with marked cards.

ChrisP - thanks for your explanation. I see that my presuppositions about mods are wrong. I was operating under the assumption that part of what mods did was make sure the site's policies were followed and I also assumed that what was in the FAQ was the "official" policy on metagaming and that mods were using that as their definition when they were dealing with it.

It seems that we have much less structure in place than I thought.

I appreciate that the mods are NOT in any way trigger-happy when it comes to bans on meta-gaming. I was a little concerned that we were possibly on the verge of moving more in that direction.

I DO think that the community as a whole is having a hard time figuring out where the line on meta-gaming is and should be. I also think that there is a sizable part of our community that doesn't pay any attention to the forums and if they arent going by what is in the FAQ then what do they have to go by?? If the FAQ doesn't adequately express the community's stance on meta-gaming then maybe we have grown to the point where more is needed.

Incidentally, I'm a little concerned to hear you talk about how your own opinions and thoughts on issues regarding the game do not come from the FAQ. I guess I thought that's what mods would uphold? And if it's not then how is the community to know what is and isn't ok for them to do?

Also - I appreciate the dialogue - I know I'm pressing the point and it is coming from a desire to improve things not from a desire to creat issues. I hope you can tell that, but if not now you know for sure =)

Maybe we need a specific set of rules regadring acceptable and unacceptable metgaming:

Acceptable:
Studying histories and rankings
Using knowledge about how a player tends to play
Using ranking position in Tournies and Leagues to determine targets
Playing with family or friends under specific circumstances -
Must be a game started by one of the group members
(No joining an unsupecting game together).
Must declare it in the invites on the forum and game title
Must password it so anyone just looking at game listings don't accidently join.

Unacceptable:
Pregame unbreakable alliances
Cross-game deals
Real life deals (i.e. I'll do the dishes if you support me into Mar)Intentionally joining a non-friends game together.
Picking up a CD in a game with a friend already in it with the intent to form a game long alliance.
Other unsportsman like actions as deemed by at least three mods.

I think these wouold be a pretty good starter for rules regarding acceptable and unacceptable metagaming.

I'd just like to point out when my wife plays Diplomacy with me, she's one of the first person to go for the stab on me - unless I beat her to it ;)

And that is acceptable according to my list provided one of you starts the game and makes it clear that it is a FoF game.

One addendum would be that other groups of friends should be able to join a newly forming FoF game as well. Kind of like Family Feud but where the families might stab each other and make out with the other family across the aisle.

THE ELITE is a one hour phase starts in a hour and 10 bet

Draugnar I think that's a great start for a list.

Here's a situation that's a little grayer - two people play in a game, end up allying, and end with a two-way draw. They enjoy playing with each other and know they worked well together. One of them starts a new game which the other one promptly joins. When the game starts they discover that they are Russia and Turkey.

We all know they are likely to ally together. Is this inappropriate? Is this the bad kind of metagaming? Or is it just taking advantage of a fortuitous circumstance?

See, it's situations like that why we have no official "line" separating acceptable metagaming and unacceptable metagaming.

My personal opinion is that it's impossible to enforce against that sort of thing. The best I can do is to discourage it. Yes, metagaming is impossible to completely eliminated, but I would encourage that we try to minimize it. I do this myself, I rarely look at a player's name in-game, and only refer to people by their country names. This, coupled with a naturally spotty memory, I think is pretty effective in combatting any metagaming of that sort I might be tempted into.

I would say that alliances should be situational, and not historical. Obviously, a balance should be struck, but you're only limiting yourself if you don't give the other players a chance to show you that they can be great allies as well.

Friendships within the site are unavoidable and I don't think it is verboten to play together. The RT alliance is a natural alliance and not metagaming in this circumstance. At least, that is my view. Now, if they say they are going to ally no matter what their repective natgions are and a pattern of this emerges, it becomes one of those banable offenses that just requires three mods to agree. That's why I added the "other with 3" to the list.

I don't agree Chrisp. I believe if you can show a pattern, then that is a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, I don't believe we should reduce all metagaming. I believe we should strive to reduce unacceptable metagaming, but do nothing to discourage acceptable forms. In fact, my list includes a means of providing the FoF type game so even the friend metagaming can have an acceptable outlet and reduce the occurences of secret friendships leading to cheating.

Oh, and if you are going to ban history reviews and point knowledge, then you need to remove the capability from the site. And if you want to ban ALL metagaming, then you have to also eliminate the ability to use ones memory, which means completely anonymous games.

Remember, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The same can apply to metagaming. I do research my opponents. There is nothing against the rules on this. In F2F games, I rememer who I have played in the past and their actions, and I play accordingly. It is no different than world leaders using their experience and intelligence operatives to formulate their plans and communications. Should America not have used their knowledge that the Japanese considered themselves and their Emperor as invincible as a arrogant fault and struck fear into their hearts by sending Lt. Col. Doolittle and his Raiders in to attack the heart of Japan? That mission wasn't about a decisive victory, but about putting doubt into the everyday Japanese citizen and soldier. Doubt that they were invicible an doubt that the Emperor was an all-knowing god.

My bad, I didn't mean to discourage the more acceptable forms of metagaming, because that completely defeats the word "acceptable".

I'm just saying that for the most part, metagaming is impossible to officially enforce, and so I rely on strong discouragement amongst the community.

It also happens that the sort of metagaming Jacob mentioned is in my mind worth minimizing if possible. I suppose this is where we disagree, and I think that's fine because I'm not taking any hard or official stance in this case.

No it isn't. Once a pattern is established, you enforce it. Serious metgaming of an unofficial nature will result in enough occurences to see the pattern, then you act.

er unacceptable, not unofficial. it's late.

There's nothing wrong with joining a game with friends or family.
The only reason people comment about on it is because it often leads to one of the other situations, which are the actual problem.

I agree with Draugnar (89) suggestions for tackling metagaming. They seem to make common sense. As far as banning gamers that consistently work together.. why not? If a point is made in the FAQ perhaps, that working together persistently is unacceptable, and it is easily detectable then abusers should be banned. It is a form of cheating if two people ally off-game with the purpose of beating everyone else in-game, ignoring any of the in-game banter and possibilities, that's what the game is about for me.. the possibility that you can 'persuade' another or subtly influence him/her to get an advantage. This is not possible when two players have joined already off-game. Certainly friends and partners etc can join the same game as long as they make it clear to everyone from the off that this is the situation, no problem.