Uh oh... Seeing as this is my league, I ought to pay attention.

I'm in 2 leagues Dingle :)

It's acceptable to choose an ally based on the current/expected league standings, I assume?

It's acceptable to stab an ally for the same reasons, i assume?

It's not acceptable to force a solo for an ally in return for them to force a solo for you, I assume? .... yet, it's acceptable to plan to draw together in each (how is approach this different???)

Yes, yes, no, I guess it depends.

i think any cross-boarding is unacceptable. "i'll help you in this game if you help me in that game" is cross-gaming.

"let's draw in this one and then i'll help you get in the draw in the other one" seems totally not right, to me.

But "He won the last one so we need to eliminate him in this one" seems unavoidable. Tall poppy syndrome.

I thikn the leagues are different, since they are actually ONE game, spread over 4 boards.

Well, It's one thing to say "I will draw with you in game 1 IF you draw with me in game 2" than "I will draw with you in game 1" and then "I will draw with you in game 2".

But it's a fine line. That's what I mean by "it depends".

Xapi: That conversation wouldn't really happen. It would be, "Let's draw in each game until the board stops us, and we can take top spots and move up."

That's a no in my book.

And the conjuction "IF" would only be needed if the 2nd game the player was about to solo and agreed to settle for a draw.

A player in my league tried to influence my moves by saying that he was planning to stab a player in game one because he didn't like that same player's actions in game three... It was a blatantly obvious bluff and/or head game to frustrate me regarding the metagaming issue (and thus no need/intention to follow through)... So, I'm very curious how people view using threats of illegal metagaming as a strategy in league play as well...

The point is this:

If a single agreement encompasses more than one game, that's not good. This is the situation you described.

If two separate agreements with their own tactical decitions behind are made between the same players, regarding two different games, that would be mostly ok.

Some people believe that the league is a Big Board, and that The League acts as a secondary layer of global diplomacy used to get to the top 1 a 2 positions at the end of the 4 game marathon.

It was clearly stated that metagaming was not allowed in the League rules.

So I'd say those people are wrong.

Don't forget that in the Leagues you are no longer trying to win individual games; you are trying to win the League or at least get second place. There is no way you can eliminate or ban cross-gaming/metagaming unless you moderate the press and make the games anonymous so no outside venue can be used. Players issue orders they would not ordinarily issue because of the other games. This can be caused by League position, something that happened in another game or just general dislike (or love) of another player.

It's just like banning performance enhancers in sports; it's banned but everybody knows you can't win without them.

The latest fashion seems to be calling metagaming karma. Same thing.

You can take the league places into account. You cannot however agree to help in cross-gaming.

@TGM: And how are you going to enforce that?

LOL! That would be gjdip's stab at me. He got a draw in League D1 - Game 1 he had no right to. I and an ally don't want to see him get nay more points (they shoul dhave been MINE I tell ya!) so I'm taking as many of his SCs as I can while my "ally" will probably solo. But that isn't cross gaming. Game 1 is done (has been for a while) and we don't want him to move any higher up the food chain. I'm just acting in the best interest of my position in the league. I need SCs if I come in third to get the best third of all 4 D Leagues.

And I told him he got lucky, but now he had bad karma...

Why do you say I had not right to it? Are CD positions only allowed to lose?

P.S. I cannot stop my ally from soloing in that game.

And you were not the first one to call it karma. You are the third one that has used this term for metagaming.

@gjdip - he doesn't enforce it, we do. if you don't want to play by the rules, don't join the leagues.

gjdip, if somebody suspects it, I will talk to the players to find out what they have been doing etc. If I need to I will ask for press transcripts. The problem really comes when there is a query about my own league...

@djbent: But I *do* want to play by the rules. We (assuming you mean players) don't enforce it if five players play by the rules and two play by their own rules.

I am not accusing anyone or anytwo of doing this but I think the definition of what is allowed and what isn't is so hairy that it's easy to choke on it. I think the Leagues are fun and a fantastic concept.

It's the same with Gunboat. If two players decided to talk then they're cheating but we can only hope that a would-be-cheater tries to work with honest players.

@gjdip - fair enough.

@GJD - If I were trully metagaming via cross-gaming, I'd stab you in every game every chance I got. As you point out to me in one of the games, you don't understand why I didn't stab you in one, but did in the other two. I'm playing for 2nd or best 3rd. I'm making my own decisions, and the other player is about to stab me, so clearly there is no cross gaming going on. We are all playing to try and get the best league position and this is allowed within the rules. Who I choose to stab and who I choose to support is my own decision and I will NOT apologize for it. You are just bitter cause you thought you could jump into a league with a great position in a game, stab the guy who the position was originally supporting, and not expect the tall poppy syndrome to bring you back down to earth later.

gotta love the drama in league D1!! ;D

@Draugnar: This is not about you. As others can attest I’ve been asking about this since long before last turn(s).

@GJ, fair enough. It just sounded like it with the whole karma reference and what recently happened in two out of three games... I'm glad to know it ain't me...