DJ:

I have proved it is possible in regard to pauses. It only requires a person making a choice about a pause for a particular reason.

I can't prove that a given person has made that choice for those reasons, because I can't know what is in someone else's mind. You can't prove the opposite either.

@djbent: I don't know, I don't read Draugnar's posts.

What if I say I am god? I am! Onar is a false god because I said!

Xapi,
You have proven it is theoretically possible that a pause is metagaming, but only if we agree to your definition of metagaming (which I do not). Using your flawed definition, you can't prove that any particular pause IS metagaming, or that any pause ever done or refused was metagaming.

Onar,
By your definition, yes, you are god, and not pausing is metagaming. Luckily I categorically reject your basic premise. On the scale not God to God, I place you clearly in the poo-flinging genus.

Onar and StevenC. are clearly the same person.

Chrisp, please, ban the multiaccounters!

But god cannot be disproven, by definition. If I claim to be god, and all others that come after me are not god, then by default, I am the one and only god.

As such, what I say goes.

How dare you? We are not! We just know each other.

In fact saying you are God proves you are not God, because a God would be more discrete. Therefore Onar is not God.

I, most emphatically, am not God.

:-)

*facepalm*
Did you really need to let everyone know that? he obviously wasn't being serious, and now everyone knows we know each other. (Even though I kick your ass on a regular basis).

hahahaha!

I wouldn't laugh at me if I were you, do you want to be smoten?

Onar and StevenC. are clearly meta-gaming.

Chrisp, please, ban the meta-gamers!

You make me laugh.

Clearly. But, as I am god, the rules do not apply.

@Dingle - I prove my existence based on a recent survive you have on your record. I won the game, you survived it. If I had not existed, you would probably have won it.

Hello again. Glad to see my little rant led to some fun debate.

Here are a few points in relation to what has been said:

1. I didn't claim to have invented the term "Draug Queen", nor did I ever use that phrase. The phrase I was using was "Draugma Queen" as in 'Drama Queen' not 'Drag Queen'.

2. I think that deliberately refusing to pause, because you hope to gain an in-game advantage over the player who requested a pause, is obviously metagaming, because you are taking advantage of out-of-game circumstances (the absence of another player) to gain an in-game advantage.

I respectfully disagree. Asking people to pause the game and expecting/demanding them to do it is the metagaming. The normal state is for the game to process and orders to be run. When the deviation occurs, that is the source of the metagaming. So asking/expecting/demanding a pause is metagaming. Refusing it and playing through is continuing the game and NOT metagaming. The pause requestor is the one who let the outside come into the game. Had they never requested a pause (lumped it or found a sitter insteaD) there woul dbe no issue, so they are metagaming, not the person who refuses the pause. The exception (which proves the rule) to this would be if their real reason (which only they know) is for revenge for circumstances outside of that game. In that case, both players are metagaming, but only one can be proven.

And this debate is brought to you with limited commercial interruption by WebDiplomacy.

@draugnar: (Referring to Xapi's list of examples) "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."

I totally disagree with you, Draugnar. If a player suddenly needs to go into hospital, for example, that's a factor completely outwith the game, so to take advantage of it is metagaming.

Imagine another example - let's say you and two friends are playing a boardgame. To make sure the game moves swiftly, you have all agreed to a 10-minute turn limit. Now imagine you're a few turns into the game and one of your friends has a seizure or suchlike, and your other friend says "I'll drive him to the hospital - we'll have to put the game on hold until we see if he's ok".

Now, based on your comments, I assume that you would consider the following a reasonable response: "No, I don't agree to put the game on hold. I'm going to sit here and keep taking my turns while you guys are at the hospital. Hahe, I'm bound to win now. I'm so great at this game, as my victory will prove."

Jamie,
It is the guy having seizures that is using outside influences (his need to go to the hospital) to affect the game. While it would be very dickish not to pause, I don't agree its metagaming.

If you want to compare this game to a real life board game, why not keep the comparison going. If the King of France has a seizure, there is a line of succession to make sure orders get sent to the front. But even with that, some times orders don't get through and armies don't act.

Again, I agree its dickish. But I disagree its metagaming. Although I think this debate has reached its conclusion, as I think we are all just repeating previous posts.

@Jamie - It's not metagaming. It's being a total fucking dick, but it isn't metagaming. The rules allow for it as the person (or people) go into CD in the boardgame as well. I'm not saying it's right to deny the pause in this instance. That is why we have the capability and the option. But the fact is, the metagamer in your example opted to drive the guy to the hospital rather than call an ambulane and continue with the game.

I had one guy ask for a pause right after a game started because he was going camping. That is bullshit and he was the metagamer. He knew he would be going camping when he signed up and yet he expected everyone to bow to his schedule. I believe I agreed to it then, but I wouldn't now. I said "Too bad, so sad, you lose asshole." and continue with the game now.

Draug,

But when you refuse to pause despite your friend's seizure, you are nonetheless taking advantage of the outside factor (his seizure) to gain an advantage. It is true that the outside factor arises from him, not from you, but by forcing the game to continue, you are still taking unfair advantage of it.

To say "If the King of France has a seizure..." is a pointless argument. Diplomacy is not a 24-hour fully immersive role-playing game. When I play diplomacy, I don't pretend that, for the duration of the game, I AM the King of France. It's just a game and if you have a serious real-life reason, people should give you a pause. It's common courtesy.

But to continue is within the rules of the boardgame. Someone else can take his position or he can go CD. It isn't metagaming.

Again, please understand it would be the most dickish thing possible and I do grant pause requests so long as they are reasonable (unexpectedly long games interferring with vacations/trips/weddings, or real life gets in the way at the last minute), but to not do those would not be metagaming.

@Jamie - I'm only arguing whether it is metagaming or not. It is wrong to not grant pauses for exceptional circumstances. But just because it is wrong does not make it metagaming. It is the general offense of being a putz and is a "Crime Against Diplomacy" offense, just not metagaming. If every violation of the spirit of the game was metagaming, then multiaccounting would be metagaming, but we don't call it that.

It IS a 24 hour fully immersive game. Hence the the timer. When the game starts, you are on the clock - and you are well aware of this when you begin a game. Sometimes a CD is to your advantage, sometimes its your ally, but thats the fortunes of war.

But there are probably quite a few things you could do which would not strictly violate the rules of the boardgame, yet would still be considered by many people to be metagaming.

I never said that refusing a pause was against the rules. That doesn't mean it still can't be metagaming.

Oh and by the way, in reference to the list mentioned earlier, I will always happily give a pause to anyone who needs extra time because their girlfriend is horny. Boning your girlfriend / your wife / someone else's wife / Draugnar's neighbour's daughters / etc is much more important than this game.

@ Dingle: "It IS a 24 hour fully immersive game"

Fully immersive? So when you're France in a game, you actually spend every waking minute acting out the persona of the King of France?

You're weird.

No. My point is you have a deadline.

@Jamie - thanks. I'll ask for a pause and go see if they want to do the wild thing next door! Actually, they moved (I think I mentioned that) a while back so I'll have to go ride to their new place (it's only a few miles away in Florence, KY). I may need a two day pause on the forum if they agree... <grin>

@Jamie - the difference is in our definition of metagaming. I say metagaming is allowing outside the game forces to influence the game. Refusing to pause is REFUSING to let outside forces influence the game. Pausing is allowing those outside forces to have their influence, which means PAUSING is, in effect, the metagame and REFUSING to pause is anti-metagaming.