Hmm... in the meantime I get screwed. Thanks for the info.

Honestly, how is two people meeting up in a game who have worked together in the past any different from a fce to face where some of the players are good friends and decide to work together? Metagaming, to me, is where you try to use the outside influence of non-participants to influence the game (like Diplomat tried). In-game support of a friend is part of politics and, therefore, part of the legal "cheating" mentioned in the original rules of Dip.

But if people have a relationship on the outside (whether "real" or simply from other games) and know each other and then end up in a good position (i.e. England/France) where they can effectively play as one and just role the board. Seems somewhat crappy to me.

Two players can't win the game if the other five stop them. You should always be on the lookout for a hard and fast alliance forming against you.

For me:
Meta Gaming= using outside factors to influence a game where those factors are beyond the scope of the current game. Within this is:

Cross-Gaming= where two games are linked by mutual players doing favors for one in exchange for favors in another, or because of FEAR that if they attack in one game they will be attacked in another.

Another subset of meta-gaming is

Pre-Arranged Relations- either as an alliance or in some cases hostility. The other players have their game flexibility reduced because two players are entering the game with the notion already to ally or to fight.

Rather than use the word 'cheating' which implies a rule breakage I rather would use the term Unacceptable Gamemanship.

I am the individual the General is accusing of meta-gaming. Here is the situation. I am england and have formed and alliance with france--what a novel idea. The game in question is where I met my ally and we are 3-4 moves into the game. Him and I have joined 2 other games where are in position to attack eachother. How does this count as meta-gaming?

I believe the real issue is that he was just backstabbed and now is trying to find a reason to cry. It's part of the game, get over yourself

There is a form of meta-gaming that is cheating: one person playing more than one country in the same game. It may be difficult to determine in an on-line game, but when it is, ban them.

It might help if there were another name for this form of meta-gaming. Of course there is: cheating.

GG: Tthe fact that the two players met up in a second game, does not mean they will get the nations they want and can use in the manner described. I agree with Edi that cross-gaming is bad as it allows collusions between the games. This would be cheating.

But I disagree with Edi on pre-arraigned relations as they don't guarantee anything on this site do to the aforementioned random selection of positions. In the case of an alliance, the rest should be able to split them up and, with a little conniving, maybe even get them to attack each other. In the case of an aggreed to hostility, the game may well change to where they find themselves in need of each other. If we restrict friendships and rivalries, we have no reason to go to war and we eliminate human nature from the game.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not the greatest player. I'll probably run a 50% lose/survive to 50% win/draw ratio over the course of the time I'm on here. But there are certain players that, if I wind up in a game with them, I will attack outright and never trust. However, as the game progresses, I mau have to alter that view and trust them in the short term to survive and or see gains. Does that make me a metagamer?

New post Sent from: positron Online (995 ) Sent: 08:07 PM
There is a form of meta-gaming that is cheating: one person playing more than one country in the same game. It may be difficult to determine in an on-line game, but when it is, ban them.

It might help if there were another name for this form of meta-gaming. Of course there is: cheating.
----------
That's called Multi-accounting.

Oh, and severe metagaming can be impossible to discern from multi-accounting and is dealt with in the same ways. As long as you're not allied with the same people again and again you'll be fine.

The point is when two players who know each other get a preferrable position (i.e. Britain and France) and then play as effectively one country is pretty unfair - and balances against this don't just form.