What bo says may sound true but isn't. Always aligning with your friends and refusing to stab because you know them in real life is illegal metagaming whether you are in the same room as them or just have drinks every Friday night.

Fair enough. However, knowing players from previous games can be a luxury in that you can get away with semi-metagaming because the rules of non-anonymous, full press games allow it. Unless you explicitly won't stab or won't attack someone at all no matter what *and* your reasoning is that you are paying them back for the past or you are friends and don't want to ruin your relationship, there's no reason that you can't have "predispositions" as you say about other people on the board.

I bypassed that point thinking that Gen. Lee had that figured out a long time ago, but yes, it's no doubt true.

Using prior experience to determine how far to trust or when to stab is just good play and not against the rules. Using prior relationships (form other games, the forum, whatever) to always ally and never be willing to stab is illegal metagaming. Bo knows I ganged up against him with krellin. But that was a matter of knowing how far I could trust krellin and if he gives me an opening and it makes sense, I will stab the fuck out of him and he will do the same.

What if there is someone you would always go after no matter what, even dragging yourself down as well? Is that metagaming? I never thought about it in "automatic predispositions" terms before, only collusion/covert communication (which is obviously cheating.)

Draug, I only said that stuff to mess with you because I'm a bratty little child and you are just so damn funny when you get defensive. And it worked, just like always.

Thats a really interesting point you make bo. Is it still considered metagaming if you decide to go after someone before the game is started?

If you decide to go after someone before the game is started, you're effectively organizing against them because of who they are, which is, no matter what, considered metagaming. I just felt that that was so obvious that it wasn't worth stating since that itself is the crux of webDiplomacy's definition of metagaming but I guess I should have said it after all.

In real F2F Diplomacy I don't remember the rules stating you can't work with people for whatever reasons you want. Only in the on-line version does it say that you can't play with people you know yet people play with on-line players/friends they have known for yearsall the time in non-anon games. and whether people are likely to admit it or not they are affected by previous games/alliances/relations when in a match, it is just human nature.
Everyone who plays non-Anon games has this issue, that is why I try to avoid non-Anon games, and if I play them I try and be as nasty to everyone in equal measure so as not to show favour.
I don't see how you can play non-Anon games and not break the rules.

As bo says, deciding to attack before the game starts Is netagaming and if the mods can prove it, it will get you in serious shit. And yes, tendmote, attacking someone despite working with them being in your best interest just because of who they are is metagaming. Although it is foolish enough I think the punishment of getting wiped off the board is just.

@Jeff, in bo's and my example, krellin and I attacked bo because he was between us. If krellin had been right between bo and I, bo and I might have crushed krellin. And if I were in the middle, I'd be the dead one now in that game. Everyone pretty much knew everyone else in that game is it was a private game set up by krellin with the point being to take abrasive personalities and fight it out. But no one went into it saying "no matter what, so and so must die".

@Nigee - Easy... Be willing to attack or stab anyone if and when the need arises. Playing with close friends and siblings is fine *if* you are willing to stab as the need arises. This isn't an issue in F2F typically because the seven players are usually all good friends (unless it is a major tournament like WorldDip). but here you have varying degrees of familiarity so some rules have to be set that aren't needed F2F.

I just never thought of going the other way that's all. :P thanks for that Draug.

gameID=122562

So you created a game and nobody has the password...

Yeah. Looks like I'm metagaming against myself, huh?

PM me for password.

interested. If it were non-anon, maybe.

*Not* interested. Typo accidently deleted the not.

It's semi-anonymous.

non-anon or non-Draug

@nigee i actually feel the opposite. If I have a play tendency towards an honest loyal game then I prefer that folks who are compulsive liars that I have played before are seen to me. Just like if we played 2 face to face games. While that doesn't mean I old automatically target them, I would be weary of them until trust was earned back. I think I prefer it this way.

Eat shit.

What if you're in a situation in a non-anonymous game, where you *would* trust the other player if it *were not* some specific person? I.e. you feel this specific person cannot be trusted even when some random person could be trusted? So you attack?

That's a judgment call but as long as you believe the attack is in your best interest (not just attacking cause you dislike them), then I see no problem with it.

What if the deciding factor in attacking vs. cooperating is the fact that a certain player screwed you over in previous games? Seems like a liar? Whereas some random person who had never screwed you over, you'd cooperate with?

The rule is pretty specific.

"You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game, such as because you are friends, relatives or in return for a favour in another game. This is known as metagaming and is against the rules because it gives an unfair advantage to those involved. If you are worried that you can't stab someone because you want to stay friends, then that's fair enough but you can't join a game with them."

So you can *attack* someone for any reason: because they screwed you over in another game, because you don't like their face, or even because you're friends with them in real life.

And apparently the rule against metagaming is less strict in tournaments. You can form alliances across multiple games for the purpose of getting certain people into a higher league level.

Ah, that is a clear and well thought-out rule! It forbids *alliances* - I infer that when you encounter a player in your "attack-on-sight" mental category, attacking is within the rules. Do we all agree?

I only want to say that in the Leagues you can't just make an alliance with someone through multiple games, you can consider standings in your decision-making however. That's how I understand it anyway.

Metagaming is using or allowing information outside of a game to affect in game decisions and actions. Now that clearly happens in every non-anon game. The type of metagaming that is unacceptable is allowing or using outside information that is not available to all the players in the game to affect in game actions or decisions.

In tournaments with scoring metagaming does occur to a degree, but it's generally allowed since it revolves around the scoring. As long as that scoring system is available to all the participants then the tournament is fair.

"So you can *attack* someone for any reason: because they screwed you over in another game, because you don't like their face, or even because you're friends with them in real life."

No, all of those are forms of metagaming that are unfair and are typically investigated by the team. The safest route is to ask if you're not sure if something would fall under the type of metagaming that would potentially get you investigated.

Attacking someone just because you dislike them is just as bad as allying with someone cause you like them. If you can't honestly say your alliance or attack makes sense within the confines of the game (or position within the leagues) then you are metagaming in questionable way.

Now, knowing that player A lies his ass off and player B is a solid ally, if you are Germany choosing between France and England, choosing player B (whichever he may be) as an ally is a good in game decision that I think even the mods would agree isn't against the rules. Despite what jmo just said, using information you gained from a previous game isn't against the rules as long as it is not either A) preplanned before the game starts or B) not in your overall best interests in the game and also C) you are willing to stab (or ally) with anyone if the situation calls for it. Arguably, your personal experiences with players A & B are not available to everyone in the game, but you can use them as long as temper that use with common sense and don't do so "just because"...

> I only want to say that in the Leagues you can't just make an alliance with someone through multiple games, you can consider standings in your decision-making however. That's how I understand it anyway.

steephie, that's not how the TDs for the webDiplomacy league are interpreting it. Multiple game alliances are being encouraged. Ask Draugnar.

Haa ha ha...I just had to point out that I love reading threads about what is/isn't cheating and seeing a participant in said thread banned.

As for metagaming, etc...I have been in games where I have specifically *tried* to ally with my "known forum enemies" simply because it will be expected that we will be at each other's throats. Obidouche, for example, is one whom I (oh-so mistakenly) tried to ally with once, even though I will take every opportunity given in threads to rip his already gaping asshole a little bit wider. As it turns out, the fucking prick, endless blabbermouth that he is in-threads, is the worst negotiator in the history of WebDip, and therefore in the anti-obi in a game. Thus...."metagaming" with him is an odd concept....

> No, all of those are forms of metagaming that are unfair and are typically investigated by the team.

jmo, then there's two ways to look at this. Either the rule is written wrong, or you are enforcing the rule wrong.

The team should either rewrite the rule or bring enforcement in line with the rule as written.

It's not fair to expect newer players to understand rules that only exist within the minds of mods and people who've been playing here for five years.

Yeah, obi uses all his words here and doesn't say shit in game. He should just play gunboats.

@gavrilop, The rules are written and enforced as Kestas sees fit, we have no ability to alter them.

The actual rule states no Metagaming and then gives an example of that rule underneath. At no point does the rule say that meta gaming is solely limited to the example provided. You'll also notice that the key underlined phrase is "for reasons outside a game". Which is why if you're confused you should ask. However, the team judges each investigation separately and generally gives second chances which seems to account for confusion created over the wording.

Part of this rule is also covered under rule 9.

9. Follow common sense
The rules above are mainly ones which might not be obvious; just because a specific rule isn't given here doesn't mean moderators can't stop people ruining the server for others!

The rules on this site are designed to encourage fair play, it isn't difficult to figure out what is or isn't fair.

@Draugnar, my statement said that information available to all the players is allowable. Past game are public, and one can determine what alliances were made/broken by looking at the board. Which is why my statement covered the situation you described.

So maybe you should let Kestas know that it's unclear. I had the same reaction that tendmote did. I thought it made good sense that alliances for outside reasons would be prohibited, but attacks wouldn't, *because* an alliance "gives an unfair advantage to those involved" while simply attacking another player doesn't. If England attacks France because it looks easy, or because the English player doesn't like the French player, the result is the same; there's no unfair advantage.

> The actual rule states no Metagaming and then gives an example of that rule underneath.

Then it doesn't define metagaming at all. It should.

If "You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game" is just an example, and not webdip's definition of metagaming, then the rules give no definition.

> 9. Follow common sense

Great. And for newer players, what is common sense? That's my whole point. You think this should be obvious. Newer players don't know what's obvious. I thought attacking someone who's untrustworthy in another game *is common sense.* And tendmote did too.

Maybe we're just stupid people and that's why it's difficult for us, but I think it's more like this: things which aren't difficult for a mod to figure out might be difficult for newer players.

@jmo - But the person's direct experience in those past game isn't. At least not unless private press has suddenly become public when the game is done.

So here's another thing to throw into this discussion. What if you're a noob, either to Dip, or to webDip, or both, who understands the "Rules" as they are stated, but, through lack of experience, lack of knowledge, decides to attack someone in a given situation, and more experienced players / mods see that attack as potential metagaming as discussed above ("there's no reason why anyone would do that other than pure stupidity, so it must be metagaming") - what if it genuinely *is* stupidity simply from lack of knowledge/experience?

typical. While I am typing that gavrilop makes the same point lol

Well, the lack of experience probably means he hasn't played the person before so wouldn't be suspicious anyhow. A quick glance over his past history would show that.

I believe Check_mate is referring to lack of experience with the game generally, but some amount of experience with the other player.

@gavrilop and Check_mate,

In my 4 years here I really haven't seen any serious issues come out of the wording of that rule. Worst case the mod team has to send a canned reply message explaining metagaming to someone who didn't understand the rules. However, if you're concerned I'd encourage you to send Kestas an email.

@Draugnar, I'd say that most in game relationships can be figured out after the game by looking at the board. Everyone in the game has the option of looking back over past games. There might be some level of metagaming that could occur there, but so long as it's not pre-made alliances then it is not the type that is going to be unfair. The players who are truly worried about what you described have the option to play anonymous games.

Check_mate was asking what happens in those situations. I'm not. I'm just telling you you: either the rule is written wrong, or you're enforcing the rule wrong. Maybe you wouldn't have to send as many canned replies if the rule actually said what you think it means.

It sounds like emailing Kestas is your best option then.