Well, clearly that is metagaming and is not allowed. Unfortunately it is something that would see to be impossible to prove. They can always just say that circumstances just said not to work with you. I'd advise contacting the mods if its a big issue, but I wouldn't expect any action to be taken.

And to be fair I am not looking at your games. I don't know who you are talking about and if you have justification to be angry. I would advise contacting the mods, and letting this thread die before it causes fireworks and anger.

whoops. I was late. uhhh. Contact the mods seems like the course of action. This thread is not needed though. Only bad things can come of it.

It's NOT a big issue....because Jack_Klien isn't a very good player it turns out...lol I allied agaist him and beat him down like the whores he takes on as cases.

And by the way.....before y accuse me of metagaming....Jack Klein ALREADY meta-gamed and fucked up this game.

krellin

You know the drill; you've been docked 25 for making a cheating accusation in the forum.

When this game is over, I'd very much like you to email me so I can give you my interpretation of events. I won't say anything now, as this is an ongoing game.

Since when do we get docked 25 for making cheating accusations in the forum?

Since asking nicely wasn't working.

Please see Rule 4 (http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php). It's been there a long time.

The fine has? I know it's been a rule that cheating accusations are to be made in private to the mods, but that says nothing about a fine, unless I'm at the wrong rule 4.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the idea of a fine, I just didn't realize it was a policy.

Yes! I love you abge.

The mods have been fining people after they are warned for a month or so now.

I avoid it as much as possible and always give people a warning first, but it is a rule and should be enforced. We already dock points for minor instances of cheating (when a ban isn't call for); this is no different.

Ah, that explains why I didn't realize it was a rule, thanks for the clarification.

Link please so we may follow the game.

Oh, please. Krellin, you talked all about turning over a new leaf.

And I was willing to give you a slight benefit of the doubt. And you've demonstrated that nothing has changed for you.

The kicker is, I just reviewed my messages, and I never communicated to anybody that Krellin "was my #1 target".

But... but.... that would mean somebody was lying! IN A DIPLOMACY GAME!

OH MY STARS! MY VIRGIN EARS! DECEPTION IN A PRISTINE ARENA LIKE DIPLOMACY?

Metagaming is allowed. I always review the previous games of my opponents to learn about them as much as I can. This is how Diplomacy works.

Cheating is forbidden. Cheating is when one game you two are playing, affects another game you aer playing. Cheating is when there are multis.

Metagaming is not cheating. Some forms of metagaming are cheating, but not all forms of metagaming are cheating. To state during the game something like "I hate you and I am going for you" is a viable diplomatic tactic.

Wow. Not getting along with others hurting you in diplomacy? I am shocked! That is nothing at all like the real world! That is a scandal that no one could have seen coming!

I don't know why people are calling this legal. Perhaps it is *metagaming* (it is not, it is intentional disruption) in some eyes, but the intentional forsaking of a game with the sole purpose to defeat another is NOT metagaming, it is simply bad sportsmanship. Krellin is in a game, and expects everyone else to be playing that game, when along comes that one disruptive player who likes to ruin to game by shaking things up. This is the England that does Yorkshire pudding, the Germany that attacks Russia, and Turkey who sails off after England. I already posted in the forums once about only ever replacing CDs from now on.

What if I did that, but then picked ONE Player who I had a personal disagreement with, and went all-out to kill them, at the cost of my own position in the game. That would be, without a doubt, considered to be ruining the game.

Rommeltastic, if you want a statement from people after the game, I'd love to explain what is going on.

But you assuming you have clue goddamn one about my motivations is just silly.

Actually, Rommel. Bringing anything from outside the game into it, including a hatred for a person, is metagaming (meta *means* outside).

Now, not all meta is cheating, but I would argue that targetting a player to the destruction of the game is cheating meta and also violates the mods rule to make the game enjoyable for all. Ruining a game violates 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!

@Jack - not saying you did, this, just speaking in hypotheticals and pointing out that what Rommel suggests is still a violation of the rules.

I like when people have nemisises (nemisi?) as long as everyone knows or suspects I think it adds flavor to the game. If I know two people hate each other it makes it much more likely to ally with one because it makes stabbing less likely.

Isn't it also more realistic? If a president runs at the mouth doesn't that have real world effects?

People having personalities makes the game more fun, doesn't it? Two arch enemies teaming up out of necessity, etc...

Is it metagaming to look at a person's style? For example I always fight to the end so in the next game someone is more likely to team up with me than against me?

Am I weird? Doesn't the conflict, intrigue and personalities make for a richer and more interesting game?

Draug, that's not really the spirit of it. It's like saying all frogs are toads, but not all toads are frogs. To do what Krellin stated happened isn't in the same category as metagaming, which carried the connotation that the outside information it to assist in winning.

Also, Jack, I'm not saying you did, I wasn't in the game.

I'll say it again. Rule #9. It is a direct violation of rule 9 to intentionally ruin a game for the rest of the players.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Thanks for reading.

@Rommeltastic, I read your posts, three times, and I'm still not sure what point you were trying to make. I'm also pretty sure that all toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads.

All toads are frogs. Thanks for teaching me something.

Not sure if all toads are frogs, but I can assure you that Jack Klien is a wart-laden toad...

@jmo

The point being that assuming Krellin is right, it's not metagaming that's going on, but a disruption of gameplay.

So, your being pedantic about *how* the supposed metagaming is cheating (i.e. it's not the meta but the disruption and riining of the game)...

I hate pedantic arguments, unless of course, I'm making one. :-)

Going for one player at the cost of risking losing is not ruining the game for others. In fact, it is a valid diplomatic tactic. It happens a lot when instead of helping to set up a stalemate line, your "buddies" attack you, and you threaten to give the game to the leader. If they continue, I give the game to the leader, so they will know next time that I mean it.

The "problem" with diplomacy is the unpredictable nature of the players, so if one of them is stating that he is going to attack me no matter what, it actually makes the game easier, not only for me, but also for the other guy that is going to stab him.

Regarding Rule 9 - yes, we should have fun here, but not everybody have the same definition of fun, and not everybody think that losing is fun. I think that a lot of players who leave the game when they are losing, are doing so because they don't know how to lose and because they have lost the fun in playing the game. So, fun is not above all, and talking shit to another player is a valid diplomatic tactic (not that I would use, but it is valid). Inside the game everything goes, unless it is cheating. Going for one player, for whatever reason it is, is not cheating.

I disagree. If you join a game with the express intent of going after a player, your aren't playing the game and it is disrespectful to the other players who don't let Meta get in the way. Adopting a CD specifically to take out another player in the game is outside the realm of acceptable. Joining a game from the start knowing you will fight a certain player no matter what nation you have is unacceptable. There are unacceptable reasons for attacking another player.

I disagree. Joining a game with the express intent of going after a player is a legitimate strategy in Diplomacy, because it is not against the rules of the game and it is not against the rules of the site. No, I wouldn't do it. Yes, it is legal.

If you form the idea to attack someone based on what they did outside of a game... whether that be in the forum or even worse in another game....is that not against the rules...

Now if you just join a game and say hey I want to attack Russia for no reason what so ever, than I am find with that. But come on that is could be there excuse just to get away with meta gaming.

Riphen, and how exactly can you differentiate between the two cases? If the outcome is the same outcome, but the motive is different - what difference does it make what was the motive?

One of course might say that if a person gets killed, it is the motive that decides whether it was a homicide, murder or an accident. Howether, we are talking about the motives of countries - if such exist.

If I join a game and draw France, and England has played as England here 30 times, and 30 times he has attacked France, and I have seen this in his history, you better fucking BELIEVE I am asking Germany to take Belgium and not to bounce Russia from Sweden so he can build F Stp (nc).

And if that's metagaming, lock me up and throw away the key.

President Eden +1

Addendum: Don't like it? Don't play me in non-anon. (You probably won't find me in non-anon anyway. A shroud around my identity has proven beneficial in recent games.)