The FAQ is very limited and only gives one unnaceptable form of meta. We established in the forum that meta includes using previous experience with another player and looking at stats/records/points as being acceptable forms, but pregame alliances with friends/relatives as well as crossgame dealing as being unnaceptable forms.

@Draugnar: Well, that's been "established" as the opinion of some people on the forum, but until the rules and FAQ are changed, you can't reasonably ban anyone for any kind of metagaming.

(By the way I am not condoning or saying that I support metagaming. I'm just saying that at the moment, it IS allowed under the strict letter of the rules.)

We aren't talking about banning Sniffy anymore. He has paid his punishment of aplogizing and all is forgiven. The FAQ will get an update along with the mod powers increasing in the next release. I was just pointing out to this new diplomat character (any relation to AmericanDiplomat or Diplofool I wonder?) that there are both acceptable and unacceptable and the FAQ needs updating.

No Draug - I have to say I'm surprised we don't have more diplomat's considering this is diplomacy site!

I realized that after I said it.

So the new FAQ is going to clearly state that some metagaming will get you banned - AND will spell out which acts of metagaming those are?

I can't say for certain (only Kestas can), but it was my understanding the plan was to expand mod powers to give them something other than an all or nothing ban, and to clarify things in the FAQ further. Time will tell what the clarifications are and what the penalties and powers are.

Why not add an option which, when creating a new game, would allow/disallow players who already have joined another active game and would allow/disallow them to join another?
This way it is up to one if one wants to join a game with potential 'meta-players' or not, and it also is the responsibility of one to know that if one joined a game disallowing meta-playing, one cannot join another game until off the 1st.

What proportion of players on here only play in one game at once? I tend to have 4-6 games going at any one time...

It's just a matter of choice and responsibility. After if 5% are ready to use it because they do want to make sure no one is meta-gaming it's their problem.
Now just as Jamiet99uk explained we are inevitably influenced by one game or another, be it simultaneous or not.

ha, you are Jamiet99uk :) ahahaha

That would preclude the ability to play in the leagues if you chose that option. You'd never get any of the quality players in the game.

Hmm, i don't like that idea - I can think of several game options that *should* be added, but they will make the start-up complicated enough without adding ones like this that will rarely be used!

The typical average of players to games is around 1 to 2.5. Oddly enough that has been fairly consistent even in the Postal Days. Of course there are those who play(ed) 36 or more games at once. There is a player on another site that boosts of playing in 106 games at once. Though his concept of what it is to play and mine are not exactly on the same astral plane.

Meta gaming here is a term that is confusing as it means too many different things to people, let us break it down:

CROSS GAMING
is using one game as a leverage against another game. This should be specifically banned and exampled such as:
Break your alliance with me in game X and I will attack you in game Y.
Also in this category is the idea that because someone attacked you in a previous ended game that you are going to take out revenge in the current game is not an acceptable basis for entering or playing a game.

PRE ARRANGED ALLIANCES OR FEUDS
People joining a game with the specific intention of working with someone or in the case of a feud, specifically attacking them for reasons that have nothing to do with the game, since the decision was made before the start.
This should be labeled as UNACCEPTABLE or banned.

HISTORIC TRENDS
Players may have a perception of someone's style, veracity or personality from one game to the next through a lot of means including personal history, public press or even interpersonal relations. There is nothing wrong with taking that into account in the course of a game but remember that you do not want to create a self fulfilling prophesy or reduce your own flexibility in that regard.

MetaGaming within php world to me, is playing in regard to the ranking system, or the tournament system or the issue.

Which brings me to a curious thought, much of this relates to the idea of people being influenced by rankings or the fear thereof.
What if a player's ranking and score was known only to themselves or only available to a premium membership sort of thing which would help finance the site. This way, each player can still get the ego gratification of playing to improve his score and rank, but it would not be available to others to work off of, except in special premium games where it was out there?
I think I will start a different thread with this in it as it is off topic by far.

Premium membership would, I think, go against the gain of the site.

I agree with Edi that we have the most absurd and unclear definition system for different types of "meta-gaming".

I would not support the idea of introducing 'premuim' membership for this purpose.

As Edi pointed out there're many forms of metagaming, we all do it in some way, and the site promotes it to a certain extent with all the played histories being displayed.

So, there can be no automatic bans - you need real people (the Mods) to interpret situation 'in spirit of the game' and judge whether someone is really going over the edge.

Keep in mind most metagamers are rookies who are simply not used to the seemingly brutal and unethical nature of Diplomacy and are looking for ways to survive and get some results. There needs to be a learning curve allowed.

"you need real people (the Mods)" - i feel accepted :P
I agree with your breakdown Edi, and to me Pre Arranged Alliances and Cross-gaming are wrong. As I have said on a number of times I disagree with both, and when The Upgrade (I know i sound like a 2nd-coming preacher with this) is through then we'll be able to use a more flexible scale.

Oh, and I'd like to introduce anonymous games as an option as well, which would allow you to choose that. They would probably require a bit of policing however ( perhaps mods who aren't in the game can see who's who? ) because obviously the system would otherwise be perfect for cheating!

Anonymous games would really deteriorate the communication aspect and the role play. Was just thinking of showing a game-specific nickname. So X cannot blackmail Y on game A threatening him on game B, because in game B X is called Z and therefore would not recognise him.
This way, if you stab me in game G and we play later in game F i won't take revenge on you.
With the case of pre-arranged alliance, it would require players to agree on a nickname name beforehand, for that they would have to have personal contact because they cannot identify themselves openly e.g. in this forum. That cuts down a lot of possibilities of meta-game.
But again what is wrong with prearranged alliances? After all it's the player's right to ally with whoever he wants besides each turn this player is free to change his mind and break the alliance, which makes this alliance valid in a sense.
I hope these ideas contribute in a way.

The thing that's wrong with prearranged alliances is that they are often impossible to break down. Imagine if France started out with six supply centers - would that be fair?

As for anonymous games, why have nicknames at all? Why not just call them "Italy" or "Turkey" etc.

On pre-arranged alliances: What difference does it make if one arranges an alliance before one clicks "join game" or right after, just before any move is made? It would only be more profitable to do so afterwards since it is then only that one knows his geopolitical situation. Anyone who does so before is being silly. (Well at least i can't see any advantage)
On anonymous: Because if Italy is taken over by another player you wouldn't be able to make the difference and know whether you have a chance to rethink your diplomatic relationship? Besides a nick name can add to the fun: better have a Sultan in Turkey and a Tsar in Russia right?

Afterwards, the alliance is based on the position of the board. Before hand, it is based on freidnship. Board positions change as fortunes change. Friendships do not. Therefore, pre-arrainged alliances are harder to break.

"friendship" - typo

JB - As Glorious says, it would be named based on the nation. And no i don't think you should treat a different person differently. After all for all you know the same person could turn and stab you anyway.

As far as pre-arranged alliance goes it sounds to me a matter of 'martial-philosophy'. If you prefer the security of your 'friends' just as historically there has been more cohesion between people subscribing to the same culture/religion, some prefer the adventure and look at their geopolitic interest regardless of friendship (historically culture/religion).
After all i don't know you as a person, but if we played 10 times and 10 times you stabbed me, for sure it will be hard to trust you on the 11th time. And isn't Diplomacy a board-game in the first place? I know that if i stab my girlfriend in the game i'll get a pan on my face back home... :)

Anyway i am not trying to convince anyone, i just like discussing this, that's all.