How about you invite some along; we can set up a game in a few days then. Most of mine are settling down, and half of them are with the same group, so the rapport is already built etc :)

@rdrivera

I hear you on the live games. Not really my style to begin with anyways.

I tried playing one and found out quickly it's simply not for me. I did worry about the fact the same people tend to win those games (at least in part due to NMR's), but it's a legitimate style of play as long as there's no meta/multi garbage going on - and if there is the mods can deduct points from those accounts as is appropriate (at least that's the impression I have of the system, I don't see why they can't do that).

It's definitely caveat emptor for those live games, though.

Alrighty earthlings, it is time to reveal my true name...:


Ursano!



...



...



You are probably thinking: 'what's so special about that?' Well if you turn the letters around slightly you get:


SAURON


Dark Lord of all Evil, Foul Spirit and Nemesis of Humankind, Enslaver of Hobbits, Ringmaker, The Eye that sees All...

soon in your neighbourhood!

Sauron the Bear? :)

That would be Radagast, the Bear ;)

Argh, I mean Beorn.

Radagast was the Brown. And you are not my Dark Lord Sauron. He doesn't need to hide behind cryptic partial anagrams. :-)

I just want to play in the LOTR game..!! Please... :)

Can a Moderator have a look at this game please? I think these guys should be banned.

They have no reason to ban us as we were not cheating.

Actually, you are if you don't specify that you know each other prior to a game.

Its extremely cheap but not cheating, otherwise they would be banned by now. Compared to some of the meta-gaming I've seen, this is not that bad. Besides they didn't know.

Well, maybe Octavian did know by the end, I'm not sure, but I've seen games like this where people had never met. Some people just give up hope too easily, and pick a side.

That certainly was cheating and metagaming. I'm surprised the mod haven't reacted yet.

Regardless, Octavian (and the others) know now, so it should not be done. Or rather, it should simply be made clear to anyone joining a game where people know each other in real life that those players know each other.

http://webdiplomacy.net/faq.php#faq39

I don't see anything about cheating.

That FAQ is severely outdated as the mods have declared their type of metagaming to be cheating and that they will get a warning. I'm sure it is forthcoming, but it is the weekend during the holidays and with some of the mods in the middle of finals.

yeah just played a game against Octavian and ILN.. they were together until i overran Octavian and then ILN turned on him too a bit, but they certainly were in a league together.. I still won though :)

not sure if it is strictly metagaming.. i was suspicious but me and dave_bishop have had a few alliances that are like that so that they look suspicious too..
the only thing is that these guys always play games together.. i mean if they played a few without each other it might be a bit more acceptable (for lack of a better word)

We ally in most of the games we play Doofman, you always stab me though :(

haha.. its just make people think we arent metagamers haha
i still love ya man

It's ok :D
(Don't tell this people you love me that's to be in private on Fridays)

Bounce. Mods?

"Its extremely cheap but not cheating, otherwise they would be banned by now."

I think this is a case of the logical fallacy "denying the antecedent".

If they are cheating, they will be banned, since they have not been banned they are not cheating.
This is a fallacious argument because it is possible that have been cheating but they have not been caught by the mods.
Where is Acosmist when you need him? He is our resident expert on logical fallacies.

The problem is that the conditional is untrue, not that this is a case of denying the antecedent. It's actually a case of denying the consequent, which is just the contrapositive, and that IS a valid inference. It is not, however, a true statement that "if they have not been banned then they are not cheating" because "if they are cheating, then they have been banned" is not true - there are, as you said, cases of undetected cheating.

If they are NOT cheating they will not be banned.
This is denying the consequent and would be a valid argument. But uraLESBIANS argument is that they have NOT been banned, therefore they are NOT cheating.
It might be that they are NOT cheating (we can debate that later), but his reasoning, as presented by his statement (see my above post) is fallacious and is "denying the antecedent".

I'm going to formalize it for you.

c -> b

This is what you say in your post, and what you take to be implicit (unfortunate word!) in urallLESBlANS's post. If someone is cheating, he will be banned. urallLESBlANS states the uncontroversial fact that certain people in question have not been banned. Thus:

~b

This merely denies the consequent of c -> b. c -> b means that

~(c ^ ~b)

But it is uncontroversial that ~b.

Therefore ~c.

The problem is that the premise c -> b is false, not that the inferences are invalid.

Acosmist, I am always open to fact that I might be wrong. And my usual disclaimer to these sort of activities is partake in them for fun and to learn - including any criticism of anyone on this forum.

The statement:
"Its extremely cheap but not cheating, otherwise they would be banned by now." can be reworded as "IF they have NOT been banned then they are NOT cheating".

No?

Or, formalized:

~b -> ~c

Yes, your rewording is correct.