"Xapi,
My response to that was:

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."

That looks just as crystal. So can a mod please delete the intervening 150 posts?"

Yet, after that, you kept arguing that refusing to pause is not metagaming. Also, Against the spirit of the game is not the same as metagaming.

Yet, after that, you kept arguing that refusing to pause is *NEVER* metagaming.

No, I believe I argued that you could never prove metagaming. You proved the theoretical, but cannot prove the reality.

(So now we are arguing about what we are arguing about).

Do you agree that No 4 is metagaming too, Draugnar? If so, then I'm the lone holdout that does not. (I do agree about No 6.) I would not do No 4, but I would have no cause for complaint if it were used against me.

You, page 3 of 7:

"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). "

Also, it can't be proven because you can't prove a state of mind, but some people might even say that this is the reason they're not pausing, thus admitting to metagaming, so we'll need no further proof.

"You" is DJ.

Toby,
Here's an interesting question then. You feel #6 is metagaming (you wouldn't grant a pause because the guy asking stabbed you in a previous game). What if the guy asking didn't grant you a pause in a previous game?

I'm not sure I follow your last post xapi.

You said:

"No, I believe I argued that you could never prove metagaming. You proved the theoretical, but cannot prove the reality."

But earlier you had said:

"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*). "

@ Dingleberry

I understand metagaming here as carrying things over from one game to another. So that would be metagaming too.

#6, whether for a previous stab, previous refusal to pause, or previous anything is metagaming because it is one game directly carrying into another. However, this is not unacceptable metagaming but something we all do. Dingle will probably think I'm lying to him for the rest of our gaming lives because of his past experiences with me in the leagues. And he is right to do so as I have gievn him no reason to believe otherwise and will have to re-earn his trust.

#4 is not metagaming because it doesn't involve another game nor does it involve some promise of a favor or affiliation outside the game. It is dickish and something I wouldn't do (well, I don't think I would), but not metagaming.

Cross board gaming is not the only form of meta-gaming.

"Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

Refusing to pause because of position does not fit the definition of metagaming.

The important word in your quote being "usually".

Its good this is a "short" rant.

Why don't you people start a thread about defining Meta-gaming (It's ethical implications might be added as well as practical applications to utilizing what might become a logical reference)

Otherwise.... you're all just freaking silly ^_^

@ Draug: "...uses external factors to affect the game..."

But as I have already explained, if someone falls ill, for example, and needs a pause because they'll be in hospital for a few days, that IS an external factor. Thus, if you take advantage of such an external situation, and refuse a pause specifically to gain an advantage in the game, you ARE metagaming.

Oh and, a while ago I asked this question, but haven't seen an answer yet:

"...I have noticed that since 0.9 went live, in order to achieve a pause, everyone needs to vote for the pause in the same phase, otherwise it resets. Is this a bug, or is it going to be that way forever now?"

Can anyone answer this? A mod?

It has been answered repeatedly in other threads. It isn't a bug.

So it's supposed to be that way? Pause votes re-set every phase, but draws don't?

Whose stupid idea was that?

"So it's supposed to be that way? Pause votes re-set every phase, but draws don't?

Whose stupid idea was that?"

Hmmm, I'm sure a developer will jump right on that, now that you called him stupid. ;P

Ok sorry, I shouldn't have said "stupid". I take that back. But I do strongly disagree with this new arrangement on pauses.

Herewith is the text of a message I have just sent to kestas on the matter:

"Hello Kestas,

Please can you change the way pause votes work - back to the old way?

I don't mean about the buttons vs /pause. I mean the fact that if you vote for a pause in a given phase, but the pause doesn't take effect in that phase (because you are still awaiting one player's vote, for instance) then all the votes are reset and you lose your vote. The old way, where your pause vote remained 'live' until you cancelled it, was much better and did not need changing.

Since 0.9 went live, I have been in more than one game where a player needed a pause, and had good reasons, and where all the other players were happy to allow them a pause, but due to not everyone voting 'pause' by the end of the phase, the pause did not take effect even though all those playing wanted to pause.

If you are unwilling to reverse this change, could you please explain why you feel the new system is better?

I apologise if I sound critical - many of the other new changes in 0.9 are very good. It's just this one point that is bothering me, and several other players.


Regards,

jamiet99uk"

>But as I have already explained, if someone falls ill, for example, and needs a pause because they'll be in hospital for a few days, that IS an external factor.

If I did not help to cause them to fall ill, then that's not relevant. If I did cause them to fall ill, then the question becomes: What are the boundaries of this game? People did all kinds of crazy things in the postal hobby, although probably not deliberately causing illness.

At this site, meta-gaming is clearly and narrowly defined. From the FAQ: ‘A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one.’.

And to reassure djbent: I would not cause anyone's illness for this game, either. I would even agree that I had cause for complaint if somebody caused my illness —because of the illness, not the game as such.

@ Toby: "If I did not help to cause them to fall ill, then that's not relevant."

Why not? It's still an external factor? Why is it not relevant?

"At this site, meta-gaming is clearly and narrowly defined. From the FAQ: ‘A meta-gamer is someone in more than one game who lets one of his games influence how he plays in another one.’."

That's a VERY narrow definition. A better one, which I have nicked from wikipedia, is:

"In simple terms, [Metagaming is] using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions."

@Jamie - That definition is too braod then, because just looking at someone's previous history or running from your own prior experience with that player would be metagaming.

@ Draug - Well, to a certain extent, it is. But not all forms of metagaming are "frowned upon".

Exactly what Jamie said.

Then anyone who ever plays the same person twice (and remembers it) will be metagaming. I know not all forms are bad, but it just seems odd to call it that.

Of course, not pausing simply for in-game advantage is certainly metagaming of the bad kind.