I didn't ask him to ally with me. I asked him why he Russia and Italy hadn't attcked each other all game.

I just think it smacks a little of meta-gaming if a player declares he had no intention of attacking a player from the inception of the game.

When will people realise that you can't ban metagaming as it's not against the rules.

What you CAN do is penalize it by anouncing it in your game and getting the remaining powers together to wipe out the metagamers.

Churchill -

I think clear meta-gaming like this should be punished... they should be tarred and feathered...

so Tom... post their names on the forum... drag their names thorugh the mud - and let everyone know they are no-good cheating gamers who cant play a game without trying to get an advantage over unsuspecting players....

if a bunch of friends want to play a team game - they should announce it on the forum and create a damn team game.

im' sick and tired of people like churchhill (nothing against you persaonlly) just sit on the side-lines and say 'nothing wrong with it'

OF COURSE something is wrong with it.

ITS UNFAIR TO CHEAT by playing as a team without telling others in your game.

Metagaming is against the rules though Churchill - every mod I've asked has said that.
The real issue is that we can't really do anything about it just yet. The next version will have many improvements to deal with this, such as point deductions. At the moment there is nothing that can be done between a warning and a ban.

@ Churchill - It's pretty hard to do that when the only other player left in and not involved is about to go out.

@ Figlesquidge - can mods view the chat between nations, and if so, would that declaration be enough to have Germany banned?

I strongly believe that banning someone for he has decided not to attack someone else in ONE game would really be a mad thing to do. You cannot really tell which is the real situation. I have avoided attacking one power for all the game in many of my games for different reasons (be it because we were allied and I was winning, because I didn't border with them or because I wasn't interested in attacking them as I could win attacking others), and I believe this is legit. Why should I do a thing I don't want to do, if I don't damage myself by doing what I want to do?

you have to be really careful about accusing people of meta-gaming. Sometimes it is useful to let other people in a game think that you are meta-gaming when, in fact, you are not.

@ Jacob - I haven't made any direct accusations, I am seeking the view of the community on something which surprised me when I read it.

@ Noirin - I didn't say I thought anyone should be banned, I asked if it was enough to go on. I doubt it is.

When a Germany who has been in a position to push for the win, or for a two-way draw with Italy or Russia rather than go for a three-way draw, decides to instead settle for a three way draw, I can't help but feel that he is not acting in his best interests within the context of the game being played.

If you throw away a good shot at a win or a two-way for a 3-way draw something is clearly wrong.

@Noirin - We would never ban someone for a single game declaration like that. I doubt there would be any penalty even if we had other options such as point deductions.

@Major - Mods cannot see in-game chats yet, though in the next release we will be able to. Again, a single game where one player refuses to attack another is not really grounds for any sort of punishment.

Sidenote, I personally believe there is no difference between 2 and 3 way draws in Diplomacy. Either way, you didn't win.

@ Dangermouse - I quite agree that there are no real grounds for punishment in this instance, and would be concerned if this constituted a banning offence.

I really liked a suggestion that someone made in one of the games I played elsewhere, that in drawn games the shared pot is halved before being split. It'd certainly discourage people playing for the draw, which is the bane of PPSC games.

draws are fine, it's ppsc that skews peoples motives.... wta all the way

When will people realise you can ban metagaming because it is against the rules?

There is only confusion because no one wants to say no forms of metagaming at all, its just "bad" metagaming.

Considering this is there only game together and we only have your word that he claimed "social reasons", I doubt anyone could prove metagaming. It seems to me that it was an excuse to blow you off and isn't really metagaming.

oops their, not there.

@ Centurian - While meta-gaming is obviously against the rules (anyone who disagrees obviously doesn't have a boxed set) it's very difficult to prove definitively without an actual confession.

@ Draugnar - no-one is setting out to "prove" meta-gaming has taken place. I thought it was an interesting thing for someone to say, and there's always room for another debate on what does and doesn't constitute meta-gaming.

I think a lot of players who employ dubious tactics are genuinely unaware of the implications of their actions, a belief which is depressingly reinforced whenever people attempt to claim it's not cheating.

One solution would be an e-bay style feedback system, but a game like diplomacy generates a lot of ill will in some people and would be prone to abuse.

The problem is endemic, with most players encountering some degree of meta-play far too frequently. It is sadly also a problem that can't be eradicated by measures taken by the creators of phpDip.

In my view the best way to avoid these scenarios is to promote fair play, and have more organised games. On the facebook app version of this platform a group of players have established a School of War group which runs organised, commentated games, and they've been lively competitve games without a trace of meta-gaming.

We can't prevent meta-play, but we can make it easier for people to find people to play with who have better things to do with their time than cheat.

@Major Malfunction: I was just suggesting that it would be strange, sorry if it seemed I implied you wanted a ban, I didn't mean that.
At times one might want to draw in recognition of his allies' ability. This was the case when me and Germany decided to draw, for example. I still feel that this (drawing because you think someone deserves to draw) should be considered legit and not metagame, but I can understand if someone doesn't like this.

@dangermouse: glad to hear that :)

About ppsc and wta: I actually avoid wta because I don't like the way lots of people play (or, at least, played) wta just to draw and gain points.

I like the suggestion that a draw should mean equal shares of a reduced number of points. There are too many draws.

There are also a lot of accusation of cheating. I don't know how many are unfounded, but they aren't all metas or multis.

So I'd like to throw another idea into the mix. Players get points deducted for making unfounded accusations of cheating whether in the global press or on this forum. Thoughts anyone?

I'm all for the points hit if a player falsely accuses others of cheating, but I think the amount and whether it should be imposed needs to be up to the Mods as I'm sure there are times when an accusation appears valid, but not having all the facts, the player doesn't know for certain if it is a multi/meta issue or not.

For instance, I'm in a Gunboat game that I was doing well in (still doing good) when two others players both hit me at the same time, players I had helped in previous phases to make headway elsewhere. It seems like maybe they are chatting, but I can't be sure and, with no way for the mods to check right now, there is no point in asking them to check it out.

That being said, I think if the FAQ were better with a means of requesting an investigation that was private (not public like the forum) then we could reduce the public calling out and eliminate the false accusations. But until that time, we can't implement a penalty for requesting an investigation that happens to turn out false. Quite honestly, our FAQ sucks and needs revamping including a list of ALL of the Mods. I mean, how hard is it to update a static page with a series of meilto: links?

Draugnar, I won't go into specifics but I am fairly sure mods do have the potential to check out the problematic scenario you suspect in your game. Ask them.


Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment in your third paragraph. I've been advocating for that for a long time.

They claim that they can't see the press, so they couldn't confirm if someone was cheating with the press in a no press game, although I'm sure Kestas could look at the DB. In my specific case, it could just be coincidence as I gre to be the largest nation and #2 and #3 went after me at the same time is just that they feared I might get a win and saw openings to exploit. My fault for letting them get a jump on me...

What is metagaming?

Metagaming covers a wide array of things, but mainly, it involves going into a game and basing your actions on something outside of the game.

Metagaming is against the rules... unfortunately it's difficult to substantiate and punish. Obviously banning is too harsh. We're looking into more moderate punishments that will cover metagaming and other offences such as continued trolling.

Any problems can be discretely dealt with by emailing a moderator. =)

how would you find out if someone is metagaming?

I've found it a few times simply due to the track records of some of the people I was playing with monkey. Two of my competitors had played in around 10 games together and have never attacked each other once. I asked one of them and they said they worked together so it would make the work environment "uncomfortable" if they attacked each other. I have just rallied everyone else in the game to squash them and we're currently in process of doing that ;)

Hopefully this problem will be reduced in the future with the option to create anonymous games.

Anonymous games surely just makes it impossible to know how many games your opponents have played with each other. A good root around on the old profiles is always my first port of call before I join a game.

I can't be bothered to read back and get the right name (think it was Draugnan) but I agree with the suggestion that there should be penalties for unsubstantiated accusations.

It's only practicable though, if a clear set of guidelines as to what does and doesn't constitute meta-gaming can be established, and enfringements confirmed or repudiated.

I don't actually think that's possible, and would instead favour measures to make meta-gaming less profitable rather than going down the banning route.

The half points for draws could be one thing, perhaps in each game the number of games a player has palyed with each of the others could be displayed as a string of coloured numbers.

e.g. Major Malfunction (10) 0 0 0 10 0 0 ; )

Wouldn't take up too much space and should be relatively straight forward to pull the data. Though now I think of it, that might be a ball-acher of a query to get right.

And to wrap up this unintentionally extended ramble...

On the issue of challenges/accusations, I suggest a three outcome system. When a challenge is made it should be raised as a query, rather than worded as an accusation, and on examination it could then be either upheld, unsubstantiated, or deemed to be unreasonable.

Upheld should be points off rather than a ban ( I always think banning just encourages them to come back as a different user), unsubstantiated is no penalties either way but with the onus being on stating clearly that the challenged player has nothing to answer for and hasn't done anything wrong, and an unreasonable challenge should see points knocked off the person who challenged.

I personally felt okay querying the community on the statement Germany made, but I would. If it was generally felt that i'd made an unreasonable assertion I would humbly accept my penalty and ask myself how I got so adrift from the general consensus.

Sorry, end of sermon.

Feel free to join my game: http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8571

Inexpensive buy-in but it should be a great game.

I didn't mean to post that as a reply to this thread, I meant to start a new thread. Sorry, new to the forums.