If using knowledge gained about a player from a previous game is ok, then what happens whe you know the player can be trusted (the opposite of a serial backstabber)? Doesn't that encourage pre-existing alliances?

i've always said it's "letting something outside the current game influence your decisions", and i might have got that from that article. i'll have to read it again.

Depends on the player surely?

For example - I'm sure many people will have vastly different opinions of me from the games I've been in - as if it is to my (or our joint) benefit then I can be unbelievably trusting, whereas an evil backstabbing cretin to others. Depends what side of the line you're on in that specific game...

The most serious type of metagaming we have going on this site is the use of multiple accounts. That is plain cheating, no need to speculate much on definitions abot that.
Getting to know each other and play accordingly is part of the social experience we are here for. The way I think about it, it should have a positive effect: What is the takehome message about the players you just played with? Is it that you happened to be allies or enemies? No, what you remember is his/her language, logic, and activity.

The thing is that I only consider the first instance that bihary points out as metagaming. Posting on a public forum involves the right of the person being accused to reply, so if there is legitimate cause, the act of complaining will actually backfire upon the accusser.

Public complaints have the tendency to blow the problems way out of proportion, when they could easily have just been petty ingame squabbles.

There is a difference between calling to attention a player's unfaithfulness ingame, and calling it to attention in the public arena.

Ingame:
1. Players are directly affected by the player in question, whereas in public, many of the criticizing persons may have nothing to do or had nothing to do with the player in question, and it may lead them to judge them out of game.

2. Limiting any sort of slander to the realm of the game sets the definition for metagaming, and helps people understand the limit. Public shamings seem to encourage the singling out of players to a dangerous degree, where it is seen to be acceptable.

3. In the realm of the game, any information spread will be taken with a grain of salt, since all players realize that the slanderous player is likely bringing about the unfaithfulness of a certain player to meet their own ends, and thus mitigating it's effect. In the public realm, there is no direct benefit for the slanderous player, and it is more seen as a personal attack. Reputation should be seen only in-game, because players should not have to deal with Diplomacy out of game, with players that are otherwise not affected.

So with that said, I believe that in order to mitigate metagaming, but maintain reputation as a valued attribute in phpDip, that we should avoid all public shamings, including the shaming of inactives, but still bring attention to possible multiple account users. All personal conflicts and questions should remain in the realm of the game for the players directly affected to judge.

That said, I do not encourage personal attacks, but I do see them as legitimate Diplomacy tactics in the realm of the game.

Chrispminis:

1. yes, in the realm of the game it's perfectly okay.
2. you mean "don't name names" by "the shaming of inactives", right?
3. multiple accounts isn't metagaming, it's just cheating. but it is worse.

Metagaming occurs when something outside of the game influences the game or its outcome. So technically, using previous knowledge of a player is metagaming; though it is a form which is justifiable if not unavoidable.

Not playing the game as a standalone game is a problem, no matter what you call it - metagaming or not [has different meaning in different environments].

Perhaps the ethics of metagaming are better resolved if we split "metagaming" like so:

a) The sporting type, where players are aware of the metagame and everybody accepts it. In this case, witting players second guess each other. It nearly boils to luck, but not quite - the current world champion of Rock,Paper,Scissors is Bob "The Rock" Cooper.

b)The unfair type, where a *newb* or *dupe* can't see the metagame or can't counter it. If I guess my opponent England doesn't know about convoys breaking, for example. Or if I smear the player so nobody will ally.

fr1988: "And I feel I have a right to comment games/players here"

I really don't think it is appropriate to post about how other players play and I think that should be added to the rules so nobody thinks they have that "right".

Pong: no, smearing is a perfectly legal tactic. as long as you don't mention something from a previous game.

Ok, but does anyone have anything against a limit on propaganda and reputation to within the game?

I think that this is a reasonable limit, and for reasons explained above, is quite different to a no limit on propaganda, and public shamings in forums.

@aoe3rules
When I say don't shame inactives either, I mean no more of these forum witch hunts to root out inactives. I will especially expect this when a more appropriate point system is implemented and inactives are punished enough without public shamings. These so called "inactives", may have legitimate reason, and it could be a single person overreacting from a single game, and the public shamings greatly affect any honest attempts the "inactive" may make to be active, and to be diplomatic. One can still bring up another players inactivity in previous games within the realm of another relevant game. Just keep it in game.

Please read my metagaming categories again. My point was that the two main types of metagames do not split between good/bad, but between balanced/weighted. While arguing good vs. bad on forums is often fruitless, we could probably all agree when a metagame is winnable by anyone, or when it's weighted to a player's advantage. Judgement comes later; that just muddies this stage of the discussion (define metagaming). So I meant "unfair" only in the statistical sense... for now.

Chrispminis: no, mentioning previous inactivity is metagaming. (even though a lot of people advise it)

aoe3rules: What? I'm not quite sure I understand you. I think we're actually on the same page... I am discouraging the public shaming of inactives.

Pong: You have a very good point. I believe that in the core, you have named exactly what we are trying to do. I'm not sure you understand that the idea of meta-gaming is a game affected by outside circumstances... smearing and capitalizing on an opponent's errors are not necessarily instances of metagaming. Anyways, I am proposing that any disputes and such remain within the realms of a game, and should not have to travel to the forum.

"meta-gaming is a game affected by outside circumstances"

I see a metagame as pretty well anything additional to the explict game rules a computer could understand. Metagames are like satellites to the overt game, or subtexts, and good Dip players engage in many running metagames every turn. We don't normally credit timing a stab, chatty diplomacy, or even outfoxing on the front lines, to metagaming. These "games-within-the-game" are accepted so we feel no need to isolate & debate them as a kind of metagaming.

I know we want a neat label for what's bad in Diplomacy, and "metagaming" to most seems the obvious one.

If we made the various countries anonymous it would solve any metagaming problems. Instead of saying Krokodil as Italy or whatever

Yeah, that's been discussed. The anonymity thing that is.

Pong, a metagame isn't just anything additional to explicit game rules. It is specifically when players use outside knowledge about other players to influence Diplomacy. For some examples:
1. I'm playing with my girlfriend and she threatens to refuse sex if I don't give her some supply centres.
2. I pay a friend $20 to play on my side.
3. I make a deal with another player, where we share two games, that I will help him win one of the games, if he will help me win the other.

Metagaming is specifically gaming affected by what should be outside the realms of the game. Anything within the game is NOT metagaming in any fashion.

Here are similar examples but ingame, where they are NOT metagaming.

1. A player threatens to refuse me access into the Mediterranean if I don't give them some supply centres.
2. I give a player a few supply centres in exchange for help against another country.
3. I make a deal with another player, that I will help him defeat country A, if he will then help me defeat country B.

These are roughly corresponding to the above examples, except they are NOT metagaming because they are within the realms of the game, and are not affected by outside conditions.

"2. I give a player a few supply centres in exchange for help against another country."

What if you hate this player based on history, not anything in the present game? Is this acceptable?

What if you exchange your SCs for help against this country based on fr1988's posting in the Forum, so it's not your own history or experience that inspires your aggression?

I also strongly think inactives should be addressed. I don't know if the Forum is the appropriate forum, but I also don't think the points system is the best solution. Inactives will continue to be an issue until there is an "abandon game" option. The game should then go into pause for a period of time so that someone can take over the abandoned country. If no one takes it over within the period of time, it remains CD til the end of the game. A faster system to CD inactives will also help.

Again, I don't know if the Forum is the place to name names, but the issue needs to be addressed. The list I have always wanted to see is is the list of 'good' players who are reliable and play til the bitter end - not necessarily tactically good, but good to play with.

Hmm yes. I can't really think of anything other than just coming up with a list of active players. You tend to pick up on these things anyways.

Anyways concerning your question, I would say that the second scenario is unacceptable, while the first one is acceptable to a degree. It is impossible to go about blindly playing as if you do not judge players based on your past experience, and you did not suggest that it was malicious intent. For example, when I am in games with Rait, I firstly tell all of his neighbours of his Diplomacy skills and let them know if they let their guard down, he'll be all over them. As well, if you are playing with a player that consistently stabs you, you might want to avoid an alliance.

Unfortunately, I would prefer if one kept an open mind regardless, and did not have any sort of automatic alliance or playing scheme based solely on past experience. Everyone plays each game differently, so you should give everyone a second chance. At least tell the offending player.

I do not however think that judging based on things outside of game is right.

It is impossible to eliminate metagaming, but we can try to minimize it.

Let's take a cue from Wikipedia

"Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

That's why I feel broadly treating "metagaming" like a scourge to be "eliminated" confuses the issue - especially for Poker, Rock/Scissors/Paper, or Diplomacy. Some metagaming is bad; some metagaming is good.

Still, we most all agree about particulars of bad metagaming. *Why* we agree - that's inarticulate so far in this thread.

Metagaming that encourages preset alliances or hostilities is bad. It is bad because it stagnates Diplomacy and it becomes a tactical game only. How's that?

I don't think anonymity would really prevent metagaming; players could still conspire to join the same games and communicate to each other outside the game to find out which country each was controlling. It seems to me it would just make it harder to catch people who consistently help each other in multiple games.

The dpjudge combines anonymity with a complete ban on playing in games with people you know, but I don't know that they really have a way to enforce that short of analyzing who "coincidentally" ends up joining games with the same people over and over.

I also think that anonymity would be a bad thing. The only way we are currently able to detect multi-accounts is through seeing the same names repeatedly appear in the same games, and without this we'd be lost.

If this was implemented it would have to go hand in hand with one account per IP - which I know has been discussed in the past...

I guess if the community became big enough, then a change to the way games are started might help: rather than allowing people to join a particular game, you just get allocated a spot in one of, say, ten games that are started at once. This would make it hard to join up with confederates or multiple accounts.

Interesting idea there Jason.

Again, Pong, the issue isn't "metagaming" by any convenient definition. The issue is not playing each game as an event with a blank slate. Folks who want to run "tactical simulation experiements' but don't say that & don't password their games? That's bad. Folks who form alliances outside the game (by default - heck even by email rather than the message system)? That's bad. [etc]

I don't think there's a problem with using conversation outside of the internal messaging system. With the upgrades that have been made to the messaging system, I don't think there's much need to converse outside the site anymore. But if someone wants to do so, I have no complaints.

Crimson, at issue *in this thread* is "metagaming" - and definition of. Read the title & opening post. Just seems to me we're getting distracted by particulars.

I think that if we honestly nail down "metagaming" much else will fall into place.