if it was a PPSC game then I see nothing wrong with him wanting to get a strong second because it gives more points than a 3way draw. I have been in your situation a few times and in my opinion its better to just finish out the game and let them know that it wouldnt work in WTA games and many Dip players will look down on them if they keep that attitude up, the point of the game is not to rack up points getting strong seconds but instead to fight for the solo at all costs and if its apparent you wont be able to solo then you need to stop anyone else who has the opportunity to solo and force the draw. Those are the only real ways to win, if your just playing for webdip points then your missing the purpose of the game.

I think you misunderstood his point, maltizok.

Octavious - if I were you, I would just let it go. Maybe just point him here.

if i missed it then what exactly was his point?

On a similar note, I just finished up in a game (anonymous) where I noticed afterwards that the three strongest players, shall we say, tend to do very well in games where 2 or 3 out of those 3 are playing - even anonymous ones. I don't really understand exactly where the line is drawn, and I don't want to give work to overworked mods, but it seems like it's not cool to me.

Well, I seldom toss in my 2 cents on the Forum, but in this case why not? Octavious, how dim are you about other dip players? He said "I have a long memory..." with the implication it would impact future games. Well, it does impact future games for most players. It doesn't mean they will suicide against you if he ever plays you. I too have a long memory; I try and let it impact future games. I want to remember who stabbed me for no gain or useful reason; I want to remember all players who CD when they get in unfavorable positions. And I want to remember players who haven't a clue how to play certain countries. And I want to remember who is "stuck" on the same opening when playing particular countries. And I will let this information impact my future games.

So, unless his other threats are really incriminating, I suggest you play with people suffering from short term memory loss.

No disrepect intended.

I think there is a difference. bplus, your example is suspicion of serious cheating. While Octavious' situation is one person who is angry and threatening to cheat.

maltizok - he was talking about metagaming not some sort of PPSC vs. WTA thing.

Oh, and by the way, I am not suggesting the little shit won't cheat, just that having a long memory is, as they say in the financial industry, "past performance is no guarantee of future actions."

@ Gobba

Lol! Perhaps I should have expanded on the quote. He said he had a long memory and used it as a threat in order to try and force me to back down from my attack. I am aware that people are perfectly entitled to remember, or even take notes, on whatever they wish to. But to actively use the threat of war in future games in order to achieve results in a current game is beyond the pale.

As I said, we needed the "additional threats" to expand on the possibility of meta-gaming, not just the minimum you reported.

was he offering to help you solo for the close second like soon as the game started or was it later in the game? that would influence my opinion of the situation a little more

maltizok - still missing the point here

@Malti

Not from the start, no. He took the stance in.... 1902/3ish I think.... after getting nowhere fast for a year or so. But his sad, toady like attitude is not really the issue.

There are no minor forms of cheating.

@ Gobba

Very true. I fear I have a weakness for being vague on details. It is an unfortunate side effect of playing too much diplomacy.

@lando

im just wondering because idk if i would consider it metagaming if it happend late in the game when he was in a position to either get a draw or help octavious for the close second, couldnt he just argue that he was being a loyal ally or is being to loyal to an ally considerd metagaming?

A very common problem from which I also suffer greatly.

Err..., being vague is the problem to which I referred.

My memory usually goes the other way to remember faithful allies. When I have played with them a second time, I had more trust in them. There are a couple of players that I stab easier then others and in my opinion coming into a game with that knowledge and respect is not cheating.

if im wrong in my thinking someone please correct me, what exactly is metagaming? i thought it was like deciding before the game that you were going to ally with someone.

lol, being vague about having a problem about being vague

@ joey1

I would say that what you describe is a form of metagaming, but I wouldn't call it cheating either. People who want to avoid memories can easily stick to anon games after all. If, however, you specifically mentioned to said other players that you make a point of remembering who makes good allies in the hope that the temptation of future alliances would influence the current game, then I would say that falls on the other side of the line.

Malt, the threat could be considered metagaming because you're using the threat of future games against someone in the current game. You're supposed to basically pretend this one particular game is "reality", i.e., Hitler can't threaten Churchill with kicking his ass next time they play World War 2.

so would it be considered metagaming if you never played with someone before but decided before starting the game that you were going to ally with them and never play a game with them again? i dont see how its metagaming if you ally with the same person in multiple games but dont use it to influence your current game, you just find them trustworthy and use that knowlege to help you in the current game.

i like the analogy btw bplus, made me smile

If yout arbitrarily beforehand decide to ally with someone for no good reason, that that seems kind of silly, but I wouldn't call it metagaming.

"i dont see how its metagaming if you ally with the same person in multiple games but dont use it to influence your current game, you just find them trustworthy and use that knowlege to help you in the current game."

I would agree with that, maltizok. In face to face games, you learn about various players, how trustworthy they are likely to be, what moves they are likely to make - so for exampke if you are playing a non-anonymous game and you are in a position to work with someone you trust, who you have worked with before in a non-anonymous game, I wouldn't think it unfair for you to use that knowledge about their character and choose to work with them again because you find them trustworthy.

ok so if those things are NOT metagaming then what would you call metagaming because i still dont think i know.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=metagaming

lol nice sarg, to be honest i never heard the term metagaming before being on this site so i thought it was just something used here. I wasnt aware that it's a universal term before that

:P

:D

Yeah, for example, people in World of Warcraft or Guild Wars who pay others real money in the real world to farm them specific items or gold and give it to their in-game characters. That is metagaming. It's basically an act that works outside the accepted parameters of the game.

From the rules: "You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game, such as because you are friends, relatives or in return for a favour in another game."

So, tell your friend that you can't ally with him, because you'd be doing it to get a favor in another game and that's against the rules.

so basically going off of that you can almost never ally with someone you know and consider your friend in fear of being accused of metagaming.....well thats just plain stupid if you ask me, whats the point in convincing your friends to join the site and play the game if you cant even play with them without having to attack each other. if the game calls for it (such as your in perfect position to help each other through an alliance) then theres no reason to avoid that just because your their friend.

That's not the issue at all. It's even OK to ally with someone because you know they're trustworthy, or to avoid allying with someone because you know they'll stab you. But you can't make deals that transfer benefits from one game to another.

ok that makes sense now, thanks =)

A compromise would be to turn your other ass cheek.

Yeah i'm a little late responding to the original post

"There are no minor forms of cheating."-QFT

Do what pastoralan suggested. Tell him he's crossed the line, backed up by the rules. Then go forth and defeat his sorry ass.

"he used the unforgivable phrase "I have a long memory... ", which in context clearly meant he would remember my actions for every game we encountered each other in the future. "

While I can see that it would be unpleasant to receive a post like this I don't think he has broken the rules. Not all metagaming is cheating. Pre-game collusion is cheating, as are cross-game situations (such ashelp me in this game, and I'll help you in our other game), but a situation where one player remembers another is not that big a deal. He probably didn't really mean it, and you might never play again anyway. Just to sure I suggest you stick to anonymous from now on :-P

typo... just to *be sure

"I suggest you stick to anonymous"

It would be curious if Octavious should change his behaviour after some random bloke allegedly threatened to maybe metagame.

Just point out that what he's doing is officially prohibited, and continue as if nothing happened. Should you play again, and he does metagame, file a complaint with the mods.

I was only kidding about sticking to anonymous.

Ah.

Sorry, my bad. I see your :-P now.

@octavious - if you find yourself in a game with the player with the long memory are you going to forget that he has a long memory?

Good lord... is this thread still going on?

@ Maniac

Most of my games tend to be anon anyway these days, so I doubt it will be much of an issue. If I was about to join a non-anon (that's really rather hard to say when drunk...) and said player was already signed up then I would indeed think twice. Curiously enough though, I'd be thinking twice more because of his perfectly legal but rather cringeworthy style of playing for second place than his actual misdemeanour. Frankly, aside from a couple of names that stick in the mind due to being unusual or posted endlessly in the forum, I tend to forget almost everything about other players after a few days anyway.

For the record, I don't think the player in question would have gone through with the threat if given the opportunity (indeed, if I thought he would then I would have reported him to the mods without hesitation). But I do feel it is a shame that a relativly skilled player of the game (by which I mean he was both talkative and knew how to move units to good effect) should spend his time lurking this close to the dark side.

So many people don't know the reasoning of turn the other cheek. It gets misused so many times. In traditional conservative Jewish households (the majority of the people Jesus was preaching too and his own background), striking someone was an unclean act and could only be done with the back of the left hand on the left cheek. This was demeaning to the one being struck as it said "you are no more than my wang" (they used their left hand to shake their johnson). By turning the other cheek, you forced them to either lower themselves to your class level (open handed striking is an equalizer" or make themselves unclean (striking a person with a hand is an unclean act but striking with the right hand makes the striker unclean). It was an equalizer.

I can see what you are saying Draug, but when you look at the quote in context, it does seem to suggest a humble act:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

I'm on my phone so keeping it short. Each of these actions take power from the aggressor. For instance. Nudity is not a sin for the naked but for the observer. So by giving the one who took you cloak from you the remaining garment you are making him the sinner. Jesus was promoting passive resistance with this particular teaching.

It's ironic this came up because this was the Gospel lesson this past Sunday and the passive resistance teaching in full detail the subject of the sermon.

Draug, yes when you put it like that I can see your point.