"Justice" as appears on this site, is there as a preventative measure. if 1 800 sniffy isn't going to "pre-game" any more, it is fine.

Hmm, I had this conversation with someone recently, and we came to the conclusion 'Yes within reason'. I know that sounds rubbish, but lets look at it the other way. Suppose someone created 7 accounts and played them all against each other until the lead account had 1000. However, he'd done this and somehow people hadn't noticed. Then, a few months later someone finally does notice, but by this time he's not broken the rules for some time.
a) Is it fair for him to have 900 cheated points?
b) Is it fair to ban him for a past offence?

The is the reason we're so keen to get point-fines, because with them there will be a way of undoing past wrongs. Equally, if there is no punishment people will cheat more.
Tis a difficult decision...

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't decipher Aoe3's initial post topic?

What part of the first reply is quoted, and what part is editorial comment? Did you want this thread to be about non-banning punishments? Or the complexities of punishing people for previous crimes?

If it's the previous crimes thing (as Figle says), I'd be inclined to take a 'no double-jeaporady' approach.

If someone hasn't been punished yet, please go ahead and punish them. (In common society we don't assume that someone is reformed simply because their *only known* crime occurred some distance in the past. [though there are limits]).

If they've been punished and new evidence of their (old) crimes surfaces, it's probably best to let it go since the damage is done.

I'd say that pretty much anything is ok for in game chat so long as the recipient doesn't have reasonable cause to fear for their health, safety, etc.

So threatening to metagame is ok if it stays in game? Telling you "i will kill you in game x if you don't help me in game y' is ok, as long as I don't follow through on the threat?

I think thats just creates even more ambiguity when we need less. I think a threat of multi-accounting is just taking advantage of the format that we are playing this game in. Direct meta deals should also be off limits because in Ftf we wouldnt be playing multiple games at once. But its reasonable to say "I'm going to hunt you down if we are ever in a game againt because clearly you are a pathological liar" even if you don't intend to.

I'm hoping that when anonymous games become an option this problem will be much less salient.

Dingleberry: yes, that is perfectly legal according to the rules. If you want, however, you can start another forum petition (if you want to be taken seriously, here's a hint: don't call it that) asking for the rules to be changed.

Chrispminis: what if people email each other?

Oh sorry, I guess was being dense.

Re: The issue of having unlimited free speech for in-game press.. Why would you want to condone/allow/encourage this?

I don't know if threatening to cheat (as in meta/multi-game/whatever) in press should be a punishable offense, but I'm pretty sure this website's community will be better off in the long run if such things are discouraged.

Even if the rules don't specifically define what things are or are not ok to mention during in-game press, can't we all just agree that players who resort to such nasty behavior are unwelcome?

If we can establish that then it's not really a problem, because I for one won't be encouraged to play/ally with such a person, and if the rest of you generally agree then that's the end of the problem.

Mr. Pinguin, I don't know anyone who *doesn't*.

"Chrispminis: what if people email each other?"

I get what you're trying to say. What if people enter an anonymous game with the intent of metagaming and just game the system. Honestly, I don't think metagamers do it because they want to exploit the system, that's more of the multi accounters MO.

The only metagamers who might be exploiters in this regard are cross-board gamers who see an opportunity. I think anonymity will eliminate cross-board gaming because cross-board gaming usually comes up as opportunity and not out of an RL relationship.

The more common metagamer, that which forms alliances based on outside relationships, is motivated more by not wanting to hurt their RL relationship because of a game, or maybe want to nurture it more. Anonymity offers them a chance to play a game with someone they know without ramifications because if they stab their friend it would have been without the knowledge that the person was their friend and it shouldn't really jeopardize the relationship in any way.

If people want to exploit the system, even if there's anonymity, I think they'll find multi accounting far more to their tastes, and we have other ways of discovering them.

But RL friends could join a game together then say "OK, I'm Russia." "Excellent! I'm Turkey!" "Good, our planned alliance worked" and meta to their hearts content with even less chance of getting caught.

Thats why i think that there needs to be a policing on it, and at the end of a game players should be shown who was who.

I don't think revealing who is who at the end is enough to counter the benefit that anonymity gives to "RL metagamers". It is better that all players have a chance to see who has played together before and check friend networks (to the extent that people allow it), i.e. as things are now.

That said, I started playing Diplomacy, 30 years ago, face to face with a group of friends. Every game there would be friends stabbing each other with no impact on the relationship outside the game. So I am astonished at the concern on this site that those with RL relationships are more likely to work together, I think the opposite is true as players try to gain "bragging rights" by beating their friends.

I would like to see everyone required to announce any relationships they have with other players at the start of a game.

Yes diplomat, i wouldn't mind having a list of who was in the game before it started, I just really want to separate this off ingame.