They way I see it, only enter a game with someone you know, with the idea that you will show no preferential treatment to them, and he/she shows no preferential treatment towards you. Also, I think most people would agree that it is a good courtesy to let the other players joining the game (set it up on the forum to do this) that you and another player know one another in real life. That way, if it bothers a player, they can choose not to join.

And don't use the RL relationship to get around anon or public/gunboat games.

I am a new player (new to webdiplomacy.net, but played a lot of Diplomacy back in the day, pre-internet, with paper). What I see is that there are a lot of regulars who know each other and it definitely gives them an advantage; knowing which players are early stabbers, which are fierce allies, who to believe, etc. For this reason I am finding it much more enjoyable to play anonymous games, especially when there is no communication at all. But that takes away from the "diplomacy".

In my opinion, using any info or motivation derived from outside the game at hand is metagaming. But this view may be extreme. The line gets fuzzy when you have a history with the other players. How do you keep from using that experience? But it puts new folks at a serious disadvantage and can be very frustrating. I am considering whether to play more open games so that I can have that advantage or just stick to anonymous games.

Hey. I was one of the offending parties in the cancelled game. I'd also be interested in knowing where the community stands on this.

In fairness, one of the things that didn't want to disclose during the game was that I fully intended to stab the ally (Germany )that I knew outside the game (and we hadn't discussed allying prior to the game). I just wanted to wipe out England first. I was France.

Anyway, I hope the cancel was satisfactory. I didn't mean to cause a problem.

Dis, there is a big difference between knowing someone tendencies vs. me texting you before a game starts and saying, "let's work together in this game so we can win". I was in the game that noise is referring to, and it was pretty obvious the players involved had an arrangement going in that they were going to work together.

It shouldn't be a problem to play against people you know. I do think it is good form and highly recommend telling the other players that you know each other before hand.

M, I don't have a problem with how you played the game, just that when the game started, you should have posted, I know X and Y and I'm going to kick their ass in the game. After that, whether you decide to work together or not isn't a big deal.

I didn't want to name names but keep it a bit more abstract, but in that game in specific, I had already made note that there were three parties who had recently played games together so I already thought you might be working together. When I saw that in fact all three countries initial moves were away from each other, it felt a little fishier. So I asked Italy straight out, is the reason you chose to ally with Germany because you are friends and have played games together already, and he answered yes.

I have also introduced several friends to the game and this site. It stuck with a few, but not with others. Their initial tendency was also to form close diplomatic relations with me, as I was something familiar in an unknown world. Also a source of instruction on game mechanics and technique (too bad for them they have such a poor teacher!). Part of me of course wants to coddle them a little bit so they can grow their legs, so to speak. The other part of me wants to stab them in the first turn, so they can learn that lesson quickly. Both reactions would be biased by what I know about them. So I try to do neither and just observe their actions on the board and act accordingly in my own strategic self-interest. But I bring up this topic as I also don't want to be stepping across any fuzzy barriers, and it was this previous game that really brought it to my attention.

@Dis - It's no different than when a new guy joins in the game in your F2F gaming group. You will earn from experience with various players. It's natural. In real world diplomacy, world leaders learn form prior dealings with other world leaders all the time. Corporations use what they know from other corporations previous actions. It's human nature to learn from experience.

The official definition is using reasons outside the game to determine a course of action within the game.

For example, "I'm not going to stab him because he's my friend" or "I'm not going to stab him because he's going to see me tonight and will bitch about it" or anything like that.
Discussing a game outside the site is extremely taboo as well and I believe falls under the category or meta.

Honestly, I have tried to cultivate a specific impression of my gamestyle on this site. I kind of hope that people use their experience of games with me to foreshadow what my future behavior will be.

Bob and I know each other's play styles. does that mean we metagame? no, it means if we ally with each other because it's a good idea, then we BETTER make a great stab or we'll die fighting

Just for arguments sake, doesn't that then mean that other single entities that play in a game with the two of you would be put at an disadvantage due to the fact that an automatic alliance for a few years would be in your best interest?

I don't think it does. It doesn't imply an automatic alliance at all. It just implies that they will be more likely to make their stabs effective should they have formed an alliance.

ah yeah, I failed to note the "if" in killer's message in regards to whether they ally. I retract my question.

it is very interesting and blur ,i was wondering about it alot
i see many times many players that play togetter many games,they not always aly but they know each other well and it seems they conect better then the rest.
this comunity is not so big and the are some very active players you will find inviting each other to a game.
it hapend to me too that i introduced some friends to the site,and when i meet them in game i dont feel so confortable to stab them,and there is a tendency to aly because it will be a sstrong and stable aliance,thats why i prefer the anonimous games.
the ppsc variant is almost entirly based on metagaming and most of the players dont even try to get a solo win,usualy two big players try to draw and gain their points.
so what is realy metagaming in a small comunity as our?
how many games must be draw with the same player to declare it?
does it realy make a diference when everyone is doing it?

"Dis, there is a big difference between knowing someone tendencies vs. me texting you before a game starts and saying, "let's work together in this game so we can win"."

If this is metagaming, is it also metagaming to text "let's work together in this game so we can win" in the first minute of a game? Because that's how I make alliances you know :)

There is a difference. Agreement before the game is metagaming. Agreement in the game is not metagaming.

but how can we know if someone agreedb before the game?
only god knows

In the game in question, I specifically told the two people that I had introduced to the game that I would not agree to any alliance with them prior to the game starting because it was unfair. As I later found out, we all intended to stab each other relatively soon in that game.

The question for me is one of disclosure, as kanosha suggested. I understand the value of disclosure in this situation, but if that's the standard that I'm going to use, should I also be disclosing if I've played with other people on the site before? If they've been a good ally in a past game, even without knowing who they are in real life, that's going to make me trust them more and be more likely to ally.

It's one thing if we're playing Anonymous, but having names attached invites a certain level of consideration of past performance, which would technically count as meta-gaming. Where is the line between legitimate consideration of past performance and inappropriate meta-gaming? Is it meta-gaming if one power irrationally attacks me because I stabbed him in a previous game (as has happened to me)?

It feels like we run the risk of drawing distinctions without differences in these situations.

I also want to ask about another situation I have been put in. I know a few people in real life who are on the site. However, I have no obligations to work with or against them simply because they are my friends. I play a game that is best strategically for me. I have come across situations where I join and my friend joins after me. Am I then at fault for meta-gaming even if I have no intention to work with him?

@ Draugnar: you make your point; "incumbent" players using their knowledge of each other in the online game is no different than what happens in the F2F game or in life. If there is no extra communication or motives then I suppose it is not metagaming, but just the knowledge of their tendencies gives an advantage over new players. In fact when we used to play F2F (early 1980's, to betray my age!) it was much more of a problem. It was hard to grow a community of players. New people would quickly get frustrated as it was hard for them to break in when the other players knew each other so well. The online vehicle is so much better. I hope all who use it understand how critical the integrity of the game is and respect that. From the posts above I think you all do.

@ M.Lit: in your third paragraph you make an excellent point; it is hard to draw the line when names are present. Is that just the risk you take when you join a non-anon game? Maybe so. Of course it is meta-gaming to stab someone in retaliation for an action in a previous game- that is practically the definition! But is it metagaming to research the other players' previous games, or treat them differently based on their past success or experience levels?

@ Disraeli: Huh. Maybe I should have reported him. It ended in a draw anyway, but it was certainly amusing to watch Italy try repeatedly to take Marseilles and Spain while Austria conquered him (I was France in that game as well).

spyman, what I meant is what's the difference afterwards? How does anybody tell?

You can't necessarily tell. But it is still wrong. Pre-game colluders have a big advantage. They know in advance who they can trust, which makes some in-game negotiations meaningless. Sometimes pre-game colluders give themselves away because they play multiple games together in which they always work together. That is one way you can tell.

I get the advantage part, but if I know someone to - for example - honor his deals unless coaxed otherwise, this makes me want to ally with him first thing in the game. And I don't think webdip.net's player supply is inexhaustible (though I haven't even started yet), but for that matter, this is a problem with F2F groups too, so it has a place in webdip I believe.

@Hydro Globus: That happens. Personally I prefer anon.
Furthermore regarding the "honoring of deals" I always expect players to make moves that they perceive to be in their own best interest. The key is too convince those players that what is is really *your* best interest is their best interest. Honour doesn't really come in to it. It is about self-interest and the path of least resistance. Thus just because an ally in one game "honors" our deals in that game, does not mean I can depend upon him to honor our deals in the next game. The circumstances will be completely different. I don't trust players per say. I trust the map and and I try to gauge how what I think my rivals thought process will be within in that context.

... also Hydro, regarding the pool of players on webdip: it is a really big pool compared with what you could ever hope to find face to face.

The big difference for metagamers is they can take a long term-cross game view of their best interest. The basic premise of webdiplomacy is that each player seeks to maximize their own position within each game. Whereas metagamers can be content to exchange advantage in one game for advantage in another game. It is especially effective in PPSC, where one can play for second, while the other wins. But even in WTA you could arrange it so you take turns with the victories, or play for 17/17. But this is completely unfair to other players not involved in the deal, who are playing to maximize their position in just that game and who assume others are doing the same.

why dont we make a metagaming game as an experiment?
lets say jugernaut vs franco-anglo vs austria-germany-italy
who is in?

its not really metagaming but dont know how to name such game
maybe pre-teamwork?
you understand the idea

no one is in?
not even discuss it?

If players are allied before the game starts essentially they operate as if they were one country. Think you can find plenty of variants of 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 1 vs 1 on http://vdiplomacy.com/index.php

i know that 1 vs 1 variant but is not the same
i am talking about team work play when you have 3 big aliances playing
there is not such variant,i am not sure it can work or if it is fun at all
thats why i call it "experiment"

You mean team games, with unbreakable alliances? I suspect that will resolve to draw, after two teams have removed the third team. Some people like team games because there is no stabbing. Personally I think such a game would be dull compared with the standard game.

I'm going to reiterate my definition:
"The official definition is using reasons outside the game to determine a course of action within the game."

The common interpretation is using bargaining of goods/services outside the game to determine a course of action inside the game.

So knowing someone's tendencies doesn't constitute meta. Learning how an opponent behaves by looking at his history isn't meta.

Staying in an alliance all game with a friend is meta, though it is usually a gray area. Not stabbing a friend because of something outside of the game (from possibly losing the friendship to avoid getting your friend mad at you) is easily meta.

Now we handle meta on a case by case basis. It is hard to define and even harder to prove. But we do find it often and we do punish it often.

@spyman - Sometime back we had a game with three captains who recruited the other naitonalities over to their side. To join a team, you and the captain had to declare it in the global chat and then to stab your own team, you had to declare it in the global chat in advance (or declare an intentional tap on both parties). It was an honor system thing of course, but a lot of fun. And the end result was two of us worked together to jump ship often between the sides and ended up, IIRC, in a three way with another independent player after the teams had been eliminated. It was quite a while ago, but was tons of fun and ended up being totally unpredictable.