Because he wants to win? You say "we have a commanding lead": Diplomacy is not really a team game. "We" can't win. There can be only one winner and Maniac is trying to make sure that one winner is him. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how the game is supposed to be played.
Why do you think he "metagaming". What has he actually done that is wrong?

I have to assume you are joking, but regardless you shouldnt talk about an ongoing game on the forum.

"when we have a commanding lead in a % game?"

this is the big problem of PPSC...
The most ridiculous is to accuse something of metagaming in this case.
Diplomacy is not a team game; only 1 can win. And it is not (or shouldn't be) about the Points.

something = someone

I mean, if he wins he gets more points right?

Maybe the first hint should have been "SirLoseALot". Maybe he doesn't play for the win...

For the record, I've played with Maniac a bunch of times. He's a stand up guy.

Of course, but I think some people think that if they have an alliance and draw 17/17 is almost the same thing as winning because they get almost the same points. And, in my opinion, it is a totally different result (win vs draw).
Why would Sirlosealot mention that it is a % game? Because he only cares about the points and not the outcome. That's the way I read his words.

Anyway, I think that the main issue here is not the point thing, but the accusation without any kind of justification... right?

My worst ever diplomacy experience was when a two person alliance attacked my 11 centre France and informed me that they were going to kill me and then draw. So despite having played a fairly good early game, I was slowly and painfully killed over the course of a couple of weeks. Despite my continous diplomacy I got nowhere. One of the players got to 17 while the other was still at 12, and instead of taking the win dragged out the game until the other player could finally get 17 as well. I got a defeat for a game that I did nothing wrong in.

Moral of the story, this sort of behaviour should be strongly discouraged. It makes for a bad game.

No cheating whatsoever here.

I was in a game a short while ago with an unbreakable 3-way alliance. None of the people would talk to me, and I was in a very defensible position. It went years without anyone advancing into my territory. The game finally flipped when one of them NMR, and I was able to push forward. The alliance broke, and I won. Longest game I have ever been in. Was really annoying.

I also vouch for Maniac.

i also vouch for Maniac and Centurian +1... this EXACT thing happend to me...

i was in a game where I got to a pretty good mid-game position, E and F who were meta-game allies offered me to join them for a 3-way draw of 11/11/12 or else they would destroy me for a 17/17 draw. I said no... then it took them 2 months to get to 17/17 draw... same scenario as Centurian...

really kills the diplomacy mood.

Same thing is going on with me right now. Some people don't know what the game is all about.

Even if there was any metagaming, what would you expect the admins to do?

And how would you expect them to prove it was metagaming?

Where do you see meta gaming

Do not SEE metagaming, asking Admin to CHECK for it. Asked to check other games for similar/related behavior. Being new here, I just don't understand people having to "go for the Win" when about as many points are available in 2nd/draw.

If you don't understand, you should.
This game is about winning, not about the points.
If you want to go for the points, you can do it, but you can't expect everyone playing with you to think the same way, or be happy with a draw or 2nd because they win almost the same points as if they won... that's absurd.
There is another ranking that has nothing to do with points that measures players skills in this site you know?
Points are just a way to get in "better" games, but they have relative importance, in my opinion.

And a Mod has spoken already: "No cheating whatsoever here."

"This game is about winning, not about the points."

Not always. I think you can have very enjoyable 2 or 3-way draws where, although you did not win outright, you can still take pleasure in playing well and making substantial gains by the end.

Indeed.
But (IN MY OPINION) they shouldn't be a priority.

Drawing is meant to be a last resort to keep someone else from winning. The skilled players here ignore points and recognize that a higher win/loss ratio against skilled players means a better player.

Centaurian +2.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=13190

I'm currently playing a game where it's 13-11-10 and I'm playing England with 10 SCs. Both players have been metagaming all along and Austria, even having a clear chance to get 4 or 5 SCs of his friend Italy, had clearly stated that he doesn't want to win the game, he's going for a 17-17 draw with Italy.

And both of them know that this is not fair play. But they don't care.

What am I supposed to do?

@AeroGabriel - I've been in the exact same boat and they ended in a 17/17 when one could've stabbed the other and won without compromise. I only recommend playing WTA or with regulars of this site. Most of the new people bring an idea of the game that doesn't match the heart of diplomacy, it comes with skill.

Sayjo, I disagree with your recommendation. There are plenty of regulars with good rankings who like a good draw rather than going for the win. I'll let them comment on the merits of it. And WTA doesn't prevent draws; I believe it actually encourages draws.

Dingle is right. WTA encourages draws where as PPSC encourages strong seconds from weaker players who ride on the coattails of the stronger winner. And AeroGabriel, what proof do you have these folks are metagaming. More to the point do you even know what metagaming is? An unbreakable alliance made in game is NOT metagaming.

As the term implies, metagaming requires something external to the game to come into play. Friends who preplan and unbreakable alliance are metagaming. Making deals across games is metagaming. These are the two big no-nos of metagaming, but there is lesser (and aome are actually acceptable) forms of metagaming, like studying your opponents and remembering what they did to you in a previous game or hunting down someone in the game because you don't like what they said about you on the forum.

Before you sling accusation of metagaming around, you should first understand what it is, and then have some evidence of it. Otherwise you'll just piss the players off and make them want to destroy you anytime they see you. Also, listing ongoing games is generally considered bad form.

I disagree that it is metagaming to have a long term alliance that ends in a 17/17 2way draw, as long as the alliance is not decided pre-game. The thing is that you can't be mad if someone promisses that and then goes for the win, stabbing the ally. I think that it is also part of the game.

I just have a problem of a player having a chance for an easy solo and not going for it only to wait for his buddy to catch up and finish with 17-17 draw. That will happen in WTA or PPSC game because it is the mentality of the players in question not the type of the game.

Sadly there is nothing to be done about it.

@ AeroGabriel: What is your proof that the players in the game you mention are guilty of metagaming?

BoG +1

But WTA is better than PPSC. There's less trust.

"But WTA is better than PPSC. There's less trust."

I wouldn't say there is less trust. That depends on the player. I would say there is more incentive to VIOLATE that trust.

@Draugnar: It's kinda hard to prove anything on the internet.
But the simple fact that the players I mentioned above are in two other games together and playing the exact same way should mean something.
Also, "piss the players off and make them want to destroy" me? That won't be necessary, I'll make sure never to play with those guys again.

I don't mind losing if all the players are playing it fair and square.
I don't mind losing if the player who wins (or the players, if there is a draw) was a better strategist and diplomat than me.
I'm not here to whine about points/wins/losses. I couldn't care less about that. I'm very well aware that Diplomacy is all about alliances and betrayals.

I'm here to have fun playing an intelligent and complex game.

@AeroGabriel - I have to say that, in the game you list, they are Italy and Austria and if Itlay and Austria don't band together, they both usually lose. So what you see in that game is very normal if I&A can come to an agreement and work together. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

@Jamiet99uk
1) One of the players in question is a novice with nothing but three ongoing games - all of them with the other player;
2) They speak the same language;
3) They seem aware that this act isn't fair play with those who are single-playing and don't care;
4) They're playing the same way in two other games.

Not proofs (as stated above, it's hard to prove something on the internet), but certainly worth mentioning.

Sounds like a potential multi, Aero. Email the mods at [email protected]

Great, I set out to be a devious, backstabbing, cold blooded despot with no scrupples and a lust for blood. And people start vouching for me and saying I'm a stand up guy. If only they knew mwahhahahah

Other comments to follow once game is complete.