To the trollmonster: I think they had resolved it already without you coming in here and slinging turds like a rhesus monkey on crack. It wasn't a pre-made alliance, but it was two people who realized that both are (relatively) honest, and that was something they wanted in an ally. The confusion lifted, and I'm under the impression that everybody is happy and nothing hurts anymore.

The only overall criticism is that if you suspect foul play, go to a mod, not to the forums.

At Jack - another asswipe that will be against me if I said the sky is blue - I'm not talking about whether or not they resolved a specific issue. I am talking about the point that Ivo is now an admitted Meta-Gamer. he proposes the argument that knowing who your enemies are via meta-gaming does not give you an advantage...when that is so obviously false. Knowing your pre-determined enemiy or enbemies dictates (in your mind) that the remaining people are your only options for allies. Anyone that thinks that this foreknowledge for your own strategy - and thus negotiating tactics - is not going to influence the game is a complete moron...which apparently includes you.

Ivo has OPENLY ADMITTED that he meta-games...and you, now, apparently go along with his meta-gaming philosophy. Obviously having a known enemy is not as powerful as having a known ally....but META-GAMING IS PROHIBITIED, period!!!! There is no differentiation in the rules as to whether you are "ally" meta-gaming or "enemy": meta-gaming. Either way, you are simply, and purely, a god-damned cheat!

Your defense of Ivo is an obvious indication that you, too, are a cheat.

I am not claiming specific foul play...and thus have no cause to go to a moderator...but Ivo have OPENLY ADMITTED to being a meta-gamer. Even without specific evidence, he has admitted to a BAN-able crime...and YOU defend him. How pathetic that you are too simple minded to understand this.

At Ivo - if you are "limiting your options" based upon experiences OUTSIDE THE GAME then you are, BY DEFINITION, metagaming and a fucking cheat BY ADMISSION.

How damned stupid are you that you cna't coprehend the defintion of meta-gaming and realize that, by your own admission, you are therefore a cheat!

And I say "no big surprise that YOU would express such hypocricy" because YOU have been one of the ignorant few on this site that will consistently attack me *personally* even if I claim the blue sky is blue. You are simply an agrny, hateful person, and have expressed the idea that you would never ally with me in a game. You, by definition, are a meta-gamer. You, by admission, and by definition, are a CHEAT, because you can not separate FORUM discussion from GAME strategy.

So the idea that you would express hypocrisy in this forum disucssion is no big surprise because, by my experience, I already have first hand knowledge of your hypocrisy, of that fact that you are an admitted meta-gamer cheat. You will slander an opponent on turn one and rally people against them not based upon position or previous moves...but based upon forum discussions. You are a meta-gamer, and a cheat,

Too bad no *serious* *real* experienced players will chime in on this discussion...unless they are all afraid of admitting to being "assured-enemy" meta-gamers, too.

@Jack - by the way, *asshole*....how am I a "troll" for bringing up a legitimate and, as yet, un-disgussed issue? You are such a typical asshole on this site: any time you see a discussion point you disagree with ( probably out of a guilty conscience) and can not logically refute, you just scream "troll" like a little bitch. Why don't you fucking man up and answer the question, you fucking trollish loser, instead of just name-calling. damn...what a sad bitch you are.

Jesus, stop with the bitching. While I agree with you, krellin, that meta-gaming is bad, the fact is that we all do it, consciously or sub-consciously. Our future actions are always influenced by our past actions and there consequences.

Also, if someone willingly gives themselves (that sounds weird, mixing singular with plurals) a handicap, most people won't complain. A preset alliance gives both those players an advantage, while having preset enemies benefits everyone except you and your enemy. It is inadvisable, but it happens.

Oh, come one. You really can't be that stupid.
1. Meta-gaming is not prohibited. Who told you that? Cheating is. Cheating has different forms, one of which is cross-game win-win alliances.
2. Sort out your definition of cheating. Predetermined enemies is anything but cheating. Imagine what a great cheater with 6 predetermined enemies will achieve.
3. Do you really think anyone would pay attention to your absurd claims to ban people. I've seen you do the same with too many other people. Trying to be interesting? Do you really expect it to work?
4. What exactly is the criteria by which you make words capital letters or not? Can't figure out any pattern, only that the intensity of use gets higher the longer you write... Rage? :)
Some people spit while talking and it gets worse when overly emotional. Not a nice habit, even in digital format.
5. All this started when you compared predetermined allies and enemies and I stated the obvious difference. No big deal, clearly there's a difference... why is it always so hard for you to accept that you might have made a mistake or got it wrong. Noone's perfect. Certainly not you :P
6. The level with which you use insults is just too much. Even if you had something of substance to say it would get lost, buried in this pile of crap.
7. You generally repeat the same stuff over and over, even the insults are the same... if you're the swearing type at least be more creative :). Writing "meta-gaming" ten times doesn't make it more compelling, only more boring to read.
8. Why do you always keep arguing with me until I lose interest? Are you a masochist. I can't imagine this being fun for you :)
9. Chill dude... and remember to breathe and not beat up the monitor :P

Guys, stop feeding the Krellin troll. The little asswipe craves attantion and your giving it to him.

Ivo_ivanov wrote: "Meta-gaming is not prohibited. Who told you that?"

http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php says: "2. No Meta-gaming"

QED

I never said I'd automatically go against you, shit for brains.

I happen to actually think you'd be easy to manipulate, so you'd be quite useful.

I say that all the time, but never do it. I ally with the person I think can be manipulated and get me the most gains. I don't give a fuck who it is. I've been known to piss off someone in game to get their attention on me so another ally can gut them from behind before they even make a dent on me. Other times I've played nice with someone I hated while setting up to stab them and crush them out of the end game.

There is metagaming and then there is metagaming. In some circumstances it can be acceptable, such knowing the likely style of play base of certain players based on previous games. What is not acceptable is pre-game collusion, whereby you decide to have an unbreakable alliance before the game starts, and cross game alliances (these are what most people mean when they say metagaming - and this is what the site rules refers to).
With regards to predetermined enemies, as Ivo says - this would be a disadvantage, so not really cheating (that decided I would prefer not to play with people that have predetermined me as an enemy).

typo: that decided = that said

@Draugs: "I ally with the person I think can be manipulated and get me the most gains"

Oops. I didn't mean to click send. That is an interesting insight into your style of play, Draugs. It's a different approach to mine. I have two main criteria (early game): a rapport with my ally (I like talkative player who like to explore a variety of options), and strategic considerations. I think a solid alliance can take both players a long way in this game.

Best of list for this thread:

1. "turd" in same sentence as rhesus monkeys
2. "disgussed"
3. metaphysics about metagaming
4. In depth digussion of the Tur-Aus alliance

@Rancher, fairly sure the Astro-Turk "alliance of the stars" should be in there.

@ashen_sugar -- see #4 my man, gotcha covered

@krellin: "At Jack - another asswipe that will be against me if I said the sky is blue"

I have just looked outside and can confirm that the sky is, in fact, black. You are therefore a sky-CHEAT, a heaven-HYPOCRITE and an atmospheric ASSHOLE who should be BANNED! (from posting opinions on the colour of the sky) ;-)

Is looking at player stats meta-gaming. I sometimes use player stats to see how cooperative I think that player will be (What is the win to draw to survive ratio). If I see someone with a large number of wins I am more careful about being stabbed then when I see someone with a large number of draws. So I am using information from outside the individual game to change my behavior in the game. - What conclusion can we draw here?

@ Joey: The only type of meta-gaming that is frowned upon is predetermined alliances. Everything else is fair game.

The conclusion we would draw is that you used available information to make a decision.

@Le_Roi - Wow, thats an interesting view.
With regards to the ability of the cheat having an effect though, clearly it does. However, just because they don't win doesn't mean their cheating didn't lead to someone else having an unfair game. For example, imagine being Turkey to meta-ing Russia/Austria

@trip: Well not really. In an ideal world you'd enter every game with a blank mind, but we know that doesn't happen. The most notable is entering with an alliance, because this is the easiest to detect - how on earth does one prove someone had a predetermined enemy!

I have to disagree with the last statement: "In an ideal world you'd enter every game with a blank mind, but we know that doesn't happen."

I believe that in an ideal world you'd enter every game with a complete knowledge of how other players play, but we know that doesn't happen.