agreed =)

No one argued it was illegal, we argued it was, in some cases, a form of metagaming.

Not all metagaming is a ban-worthy offense.

Ok, I change my rant to say that it is not metagaming either.

To be honest, if the pause wasn't granted due to one particular player being a PFM (i.e. poo-flinging monkey), then I think the others would most likely be willing to teach said PFM a quick lesson by sqaushing him into an insignificant pile of mush and then resume normal activities when the requesting player returns. Division of PFMs former SCs can be determined once he/she has been squashed.

@DBJ - I would say only 1 and 4 are pause-worthy (albeit insert wife for gf).

lol ok this is getting hilarious. i think it's metagaming that you are changing your rant mid-rant!!! ;D

We had an incident where a pause did not take effect and everyone just put in hold orders until the person was able to return.

I've never played you Djb, but you can bet there will be metagaming involving lots of poo-flinging if that day occurs.

djb - but what good is a rant that does not spawn tangential rants which, in turn, lead to ranting against the rants?

i'm changing my rant to against your rant changing.

rant changing is meta gaming.

poo flinging is meta gaming

war is peace. slavery is freedom. red is the new black.

Ooh. A quick aside. The PFM has absolutely no correlation with amonkeyperson, who, to my knowledge, has never demonstrated such behavior and with whom I've never had a bad game experience. I just didn't want his name smeared by any inadvertant interpretation of the phrase.

A pause has been asked for what you understand is a valid reason. A player chooses not to vote for the pause, because:

1) He feels the game is close to an end, and he needs the points to enter another one.
2) He asked for a pause for himself before in that game, and wasn't granted one.
3) He has the strong belief that you should keep your commitments (IE: Phase time), no matter what.
4) He believes his position in the game will benefit from the NMR of the player who asked for the pause.
5) He holds a grudge over that player because of a stab in that game.
6) He holds a grudge over that player because of a stab in a previous game.

Now, these are all diferent situations, some more obvious than the others. Not all are metagaming, but N° 4 certainly is.

If I haven't convinced you, then we can agree to disagree.

huh huh.. smeared poo

(I always feel bad for the younger generation and possibly Europeans who missed out on the piece of high American culture known as Beavis and Butthead)

heh heh.... you said butt.... heh heh....

B&B taught me how to speak Spanish.

Taco, enchillada.....

I got to see Beavis and Butthead as a young boy.

Even played the Sega Genesis game...

Com t'atreveixes?

Xapi,
In absence of anything else, I do believe #4,5 and 6 are against the spirit of the game. However, if 1,2 or 3 also applies, then 4,5,6 are no longer relevant.

Is that a meeting of the poo-flinging minds?

No 4 is NOT metagaming. The definition of metagaming is using outside factors to influence the game. A pause is within the game and is therefore a valid tactic to refuse if it will get you a win or better your position. The only meta in your list is #6 and that is because he let another game's results influence his decision.

DJ: That's why you can't enforce any rule on the matter, how do I know what is going on inside someone's head?

But just because I can't know for sure, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Like God.

god is a poo flinging monkey who watches beavis and butthead?

damn, now i'll have to be a believer.

"But just because I can't know for sure, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

And that doesn't mean it does exist either.

Of course not.

But your point is that refusing a pause is never metagaming.

I have shown a case where I believe it certainly is, and even when I can't know for sure wheather that is the case on each ocasion, I'm pretty certain that it is the case on some of them.

And yes, obviously, God watches Beavis and Butthead.

Believe, or burn in Hell.

Wait a second, I don't watch Beavis and butthead... anymore.

/blasphemy

Xapi,
Now you are indeed thread hijacking. You have come up with a theoretical model to show metagaming is possible. You still cannot show it exists in regards to pauses.

but draugnar just proved the theory and the model, no? with his statements?

No, Draugnar just refuted Xapi's framework and stipulations. (Besides, prove to me Draugnar exists....)

"A pause is ... a valid tactic to refuse if it will get you a win or better your position. "

doesn't that prove Xapi's model? i'd say. again, back to semantics.

less semantics, more poo-flinging please!!!