I have done that, so lets see.

But this is the problem with the Masters. We just need someone who will enter a fairly simple set of moves to guarantee the stalemate line in this game. They don't need to enter the rest of the competition. Otherwise someone wins when they shouldn't and skews the whole contest.

but isn't your place to recruit when there may be a waiting list for spots.

*But it isn't...

It can't be proper to recruit a new player based on promising an in-game alliance if you join, either, that must be some sort of metagaming or at least talking about a current game on the forum or something that shouldn't be done...

Agreed, MM. And saying "all they need to do" is basically recruiting based on your expectations and telling the new player what they should do. This *is* metagaming at it's worst.

Interesting discussion. With hindsight, I think I did step over the line on discussion of a live game - so I accept the rebuke.

However, I think "metagaming at it's worst" is an exaggeration. I can't see any official definition of metagaming on the site, although I know there have been countless discussions on the Forum. My understanding of "metagaming at it's worst" is when two people who know each other start a game with the objective of fixing a game from the beginning.

In a game which is drawing to a close where there was a simple (and publishable) trail of moves to get to a draw, then the situation is different. Obviously any discussion is subject to the normal rules of Diplomacy that someone might not do as they as they promised. In addition, I don't know who might join the game.

Given that we allow replacements, correctly in my view, as this makes the game fun for all and to some degree, tries to correct the imbalances caused by dropouts.

I would appreciate one of the Mods to explain the "correct" process to obtain a replacement. Clearly the fact that a player is even asking for a replacement shows at least some of what he is thinking. Presumably PMs to discuss the position should be completely banned. Of course this puts the replacement player at a considerable disadvantage, because he is stepping into a game, where he has no understanding of the history or the conversations the previous player has had. He can see just the moves and the public press. Perhaps PMs discussing the game to date should be allowed, after that is no more information that any other player has already. Sounds a bit complicated. It probably makes getting a replacement less likely, which then raises the question of why we allow them in the first place. So maybe PMs should be allowed on the basis that as in all Diplomacy, there is no guarantee that that anyone will do as they say.

The final point is then the Masters is determined by someone dropping out. I think the competition is flawed for that reason. I just joined because I thought I would get some good games, sadly that has not been the case.

All interesting stuff.

martinck1, I merely felt a responsibility to say something so newbs don't get the idea that this is the sort of way to advertise for replacements, and thought it would be a good discussion for people to have, a good point for people to think about. I agree that it is not "metagaming at it's worst", but it certainly is something that should be avoided in the future. I'm also confident it was an innocent mistake, one of those "no harm no foul" sort of things, but again, good to nip it in the bud before it mysteriously grows out of control.

martinck1, I'm not a mod, but the "correct" process is as I initially said. Get the game paused, and email the tournament director.

From here:
http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/themasters/thetmgmasters%27rules

Civil Disorder:
If a player enters civil disorder, they will be kicked from the tournament, and suspended from the next iteration as explained above. The games will be paused and the player replaced by a new entrant.


For the record, I don't think it would be that hard to get someone to take up a spot in a Masters game. I'd happily do it, whether this game or another, as long as I'm not in it. I'm not saying whether or not I'm in this particular game of course.

@ Martinck1 - "I can't see any official definition of metagaming on the site, although I know there have been countless discussions on the Forum."

FYI. Copied and pasted from the Rulebook section - "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. This is known as metagaming and is against the rules because it gives an unfair advantage to those involved." That's as close to a definition as you'll find on here.

@Triumvir - Thanks for that direction - I have always assumed that "Rulebook" meant the Diplomacy rules, so I have never looked at that section. I think on that definition of Metagaming, I can't see that encouraging someone to join a game is metagaming. It's not done in secret, which is an important part of the deception, nor does it involve friends or relatives, nor it is in return for favours in another game.

@ Alderian - Thanks too for your thoughts on the rules in Masters competitions. I was more musing on an "acceptable" way to find replacements in any game.

@ MM - while I agree that I crossed over the line, I don't think I was that far over. The mantra "don't discuss live games in the forum" isn't in the newly found Rulebook and I guess the purpose is to keep the game conversations within the game where they belong.

So in future, my process for finding a replacement (in games other than the Masters) will be to post my thoughts on the public press in the game, where they will would be open for all the players to see and use the forum to direct to that press.

I'm still not too big on trying to recruit by saying you will ally with a person if they join, regardless of if that's in the global tab of your game or on the forum. I think if you need a replacement, you should merely ask for a replacement, then once a person joins a game everyone can chat with that person at that point. It's pretty unfair to guarantee first contact with a new player and make promises of an alliance, though perhaps I just think it's unfair and certainly rude to the other people in the game, I like the playing field to be level and for everyone to start with a clean slate.

Yes I understand your discomfort and, to some degree share it, as I've thought about this subject more over this discussion.

I think there is a distinction between the start of the game where everyone should start with a clean slate and the middle or end of a game where there is history to a game and any replacement will want to understand it before choosing whether to join or not. In many ways a game is set in a pattern at a certain stage and it just needs the participants to play it out.

The question any replacement thinks about before joining a game that is in it's closing stages - is "are they going to cut me out of the draw?" and "how will I fit into alliances that have already been formed in the game?".

Given that we want replacements to join, there does need to be some mechanism for that discussion to take place.

I guess also players records are useful here - do they keep people in draws when they have helped stop someone soloing

Password?

@ Sydney City - if you read the rest of the rest of the thread, you will see that I have had my knuckles rapped for requesting a replacement in this game, so I am unable to give you the password.

The way to join the Masters is by contacting TrustMe at [email protected]