I wrote that before looking at Jerk's other games.

Now I'm even less convinced there is anything shady going on. Jerkface has played 15 games and this is the only one BoG is in. It's kinda funny you're falling for Italy's press though.

Italy's press??? D-Nasty is a good buddy of mine at school.

So? If you know someone and trust them in real life should have no effect on how you play the game. Indeed, what you have just said means that infact you are not playing quite as you should. I'm not saying you shouldn't play with people you know, but what you think of their play and actions etc should be totally due to that, and not to if they are your best friend.

I understand what you're saying figles...
But we don't team up against everyone else and we don't strategize off each others moves... Sure, we may make a NA Pact with each other but we don't make a huge alliance that we go agaist everyone else because we both understand it takes away from the game...

BoG75 seems straight up to me.

I'm in a game with BoG75 and he seems fine, he is a good player and he knows what he's talking about. I think its unjustly to accuse him of meta gaming.

I am a real good friend of Jerkface and he is no meta gemer. I do feel honored to receive this accusation though.

Could everyone realize that metagaming and multiaccounting are different things? Multiaccounting is just that, when you have multiple accounts. Metagaming is when you bring personal relationships and out of game personal politics into the game. For example if you never stab your wife and always attack her enemies simply because she's your wife. This detracts from the game and gives the other players who have no relationship to either you or your wife in RL a great disadvantage. It's not as severe as multi-accounting but the effects may be the same. A gigantic unbreakable alliance. There's no Diplomacy.

Chrispminis, you are asking people to be unhuman. Even Richard Sharp acknowledges that our human aspects influence the game. And in real-life relationships and grudges affected politics. As Diplomacy is about just that, diplomacy, I think it's only cricket to have to face the same situations in a game of "political intrigue." After all, WWI was caused by personal relationships and "unbreakable alliances." I believe the issue is that games are drawn which are not at a stalemate line. Two allies that bind together should have to stab each other in order to reach the 18SC's, that's the way the game was designed. Plus, it's unprobable to reach a stalemate when there's only two players left in the game.

Churchill, games often happily end in a divided draw between two players. Stalemate or not, they can just agree to split the game. You have to realize that Richard Sharp played with people he knew... it's all very well when you're playing F2F or postal where everyone knows everyone... but in the realm of phpDip, few people know each other.

You would put a player at a severe disadvantage if you used your personal relationships to get an unbreakable alliance, whereas someone else in the game does not have the opportunity to forge anything near the same kind of alliance with the person, because they do not share an RL relationship.

Alliances that are predetermined by personal relationship drastically restrict the diplomatic aspect of the game. I'm not asking people to be unhuman. I'm asking people to respect their opponents, and be open to negotiation and Diplomacy, and be prepared to stab their RL best friend, to keep the spirit of the game.

"Sent from: reptar_69 (100 ) Sent: 10:56 AM
Italy's press??? D-Nasty is a good buddy of mine at school."

Exibit 1 your honor. Please get your facts straight before making silly comments like that. Also do some research on potential metas.

Thanks. NEXT!!!!!!!!

Sent from: Jerkface (101 ) Sent: 01:45 PM
I am a real good friend of Jerkface and he is no meta gemer. I do feel honored to receive this accusation though.

Wait wut...

this is slim evidence. slimmer than most accusations on this form thats for sure. they joined phpdip months apart, have only played one game together and that game has just started.

please

He straight, he straight. Aight.

I do see your point Crispminis, and I am totally against forming alliances outside of the realm of diplomacy, but if I was playing with someone I knew, I would seriously watch my back as they know my weaknesses and patterns. So, in the end I suppose that it's people who cannot keep real life and Diplomacy separate that ruin the game. That would seem to point that fear of reprisal in real life for something done in game, which would be the same as two players here forming a grudge and carrying it over to another game. Again, I think this forms an unchangeable part of human nature that you will never be able to regulate with as many rules as you could think of. Bascially said, this re-itirates the need for mature Diplomacy players, as I am sure that these will be among the few that will break out of the '100-point-pack', thus singing the praises of the person who developed that idea.

However, one way of limiting friendly co-operation would be to not reveal player names / points in game until the end and not have visible game names or ID's.The joinable games page for new games would simply list the buy-in price. For CD buy-ins it would be trickier, but, again, if you hide the name / ID of the game it makes it difficult to join. It would simply advertise take over Country for X points and give a link to the map only. Of course, this then changes the scope of the community, perhaps for the better as there would be less finger pointing and abuse.

Jerkface has always meta gamed.
Why play with him?

canute, if you join a game that has less than six players and he joins after you... there's not much you can do about it except team up against him... which to me borders on lowering yourself to their level. The only redeeming factor is that otherwise, the game would be imbalanced. So really, known metagamers are at a disadvantage in that they should often be picked on in games.

got any evidence canute? quite bad form to accuse without evidence im afraid canute.

Churchill, that is the flaw.... HOWEVER one should OUT him at the start if you know he has joined.
That should eliminate all of his cheating if its done consistently.
Sean- I have mates on here who have played him and his "alias'"
so yes i have proof via word of mouth and have seen 2 games in question.
Since you are always quick to bag someone who has cheated, i find this odd of you.
You always ask for them to be BANNED.
Why the change of heart?
Are he and you the same, lol?

Seriously, Kestas can sort it out and ban them if needed... after all one gets banned for less these days... ie: HATING THE USA- Piitirre?

Pitirre even:)

canute, your ability to turn a civil discussion into a flame war is astounding...

Do you mean defeat him by ways of the game or remove him from the game through some other means?

Canute if you're going to accuse him you've got to give some evidence...

Yes. Evidence. My previous post was a joke because it was, to my eyes, so preposterous. But anyway, no I am not a metagamer or anything. Hell, I WISH more of my friends were insterested in a game like this.

I second abgemacht's opinion. The only discussion in which you've ever been involved without causing unreasonable trouble is the one about your favorite character from Asterix (Dogmatix, if I recall correctly).

Time of login is not evidence of metagaming (and only slight evidence of multiaccounting).

Time of login sometimes evidence of players communicating with each other. More often it is just players reacting to the game reaching a new stage.

Other than obvious metagaming, I don't see how to keep friends from helping each other. If we want the community to grow, we'll invite friends to join and make new friends while playing the game.

I just don't want to play friends that can't backstab each other.