The problem is that playing together in every game doesn't mean you are cheating. As long as they don't ally in every game, then it isn't cheating.

That being said, it is late and I didn't research the specifics of the games in question. I'll leave that to a mod to do. But I did notice a striking number of times they came in 1/2 and how they would let the other win by not bothering to defend their own centers at the end.

In short, you may be onto something.

Please email us this sort of thing, and definitely don't put your accusations in a title post.
Ghost had a look into this a few days ago, so I'll talk to him before commenting

By no means am I suggesting that just because two players choose to consistently play the same games that they are doing something wrong. It is the actions that they take in those games that dictate if something improper is being done.

Thanks for looking into this.

Actually, I played a game with this guys where they admit to metagaming in the Global Chat. I think I reported it to the Mods a month or 2 ago but I never heard anything about it. Here is the global conversation in this game=http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=13190#gamePanel

Spring 1908: I wouldn't attack England.
In fact, in Austria's position in this game, the best thing to do is to take control of Napoles, Venice, Spain and Smyrna. That would take away 4 units from Italy. England can't possibly stop this advance if you make a defensive line in Germany and Russia, and that would be a war in the South with you, with seventeen SC's, against poor Italy with only five.

But no. You can't possibly play it straight.
Cause you are a cheap player who can't do nothing on your own and need to play with preset alliances to win.

That sucks.
We are trying play a fair game and you guys just can't help cheating and fucking up with our fun.

Grow up. Srsly.
25 Sep 2009 Spring 1908: there is no rule forbidding it.
btw we met here and decided to play together in other games.
so better be quiet when you don't know hat's the matter.

The last is a quote by raZZer. Just thought that might help prove that they're meta-gaming.

I was in this game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=15793

I thought it was incredibly fishy that they drew the game when they did, when if they were playing the game the way it's meant to be played, they would have stabbed each other and gone for the win.

I should have added, they knocked out just enough of us to make it a net gain in points to draw.

Razzer is on my banlist for metagaming. I believe it was with an account called Z. Unfortunately I'm not at home, and don't have access to the banlist to look up the details.

I know that the game we were in was canceled however, when we learned that they were "friends in real life."

Have you passed this list on to us John?

Interesting that the only time they do not do well is when they are Austria and England.

This sparks my interest; should I resend any multi accusations I sent about two months ago? I sent a few, and none seem to have been followed up, and this pair was one of them...

Likewise. I had the same suspicion when they were first starting. raZZer even admitted it. Kill the rabbit.

@fig, sounds like the mods have been notified numerous times and nothing has been done about the metagamers. I'm sure you all have been busy (I know you have), but it sounds like this needs serious consideration before these two destroy any more games.

@Figle: They're not bannable offenses. They're people I want to avoid in the future because of their conduct, or because an accusation was not proven to the mod's satisfaction, but was proven to mine.

@most people, esp Draug: Ghost looked into this very case a couple of nights ago. I'll check with him again.
@c-k: have you any evidence you can show us of this?
@John.Galt: Fair enough. If you have reasons with each name, Would you mind emailing it to us incase there's something we haven't seen?
@Le_Roi: Well you can do, but Ghost & I cleared through all the past emails that hadn't been archived (ie dealt with) a couple of nights ago. Are you sure we didn't get back to you, and not just that you felt our response wasn't correct?

@fig - fair enough. I'm just noticing that people say their requests that were sent weren't followed up on. Something is a disconnect there.

What exactly are the rules regarding an offense that would get one banned? This seems to be a case where multiple people are aware of the metagaming, and the evidence is quite strong, so if this is not an offense that would get one banned what is? Can they at least be banned from playing in games with each other, or can they be banned from playing in anonymous games? If that is the case then several people can let anyone in a game they both join know that they are going to work with each other. Finally I am just curious, foxtrot and razzer, what is the point of this behavior? You don't seem to gain anything by it so if you would explain why you engage in this behavior that would be appreciated.

A question- what is the threshold for metagaming? If you've played in a past game with someone and found them to be trustworthy and you ally in other games based on that trust, is that metagaming? This is assuming you don't know that person in real life.

Sure, stabbing people is part of Diplomacy, but there are game theory reasons behind keeping one's word in a game where you expect to encounter players over and over again.

If we could be sure (which is nigh impossible to do) then it would probably be a banable offence. Otherwise it's likely to go with a point fine and some sort of warning.
Unless you can suggest another option. I expect Ghost will comment on the results of his investigation as soon as he can.

Why not just quit the game before it starts when you see the meta gamers you've identified have signed on? Another option, PM everyone in the game when a meta joins and have everyone agree to destroy them.

My impression of meta-gaming is that it's something like card-counting at a casino; not technically illegal but the casinos have the right to ban anyone from playing and use that right ruthlessly against card-counters. Multi-accounting is more like using a computer in your pants to have a friend at another table tell you what cards are coming up. In that case the casinos wouldn't just ban you, Robert DeNiro would take you into another room and smash your hand with a hammer. Good analogies? Yay, nay?

Yes, having prior knowledge of someone's tendencies to be a trustworthy ally or not is valuable information to have and definitely factors into game theory. I don't think that if you know that person in real life is a factor. At least I know I would play against a friend the same way I would against someone else.

Yes, if I entered a game and saw that somebody I had worked well with in the past was in the game, then I would be more likely to work with them again. That is different than intentionally joining the same games time and again for that purpose.

The game that I played with them was anonymous. http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=15983#gamePanel
It is obvious that they intentionally joined the same game knowing who each other was and choose to work together. That is cheating.

@ Figle: I was actually remembering my list wrong - I don't have Razzer on it. The game I was thinking of was with Spartan 00256 and L, who claimed they were roommates. They allied in almost every game they were in - but that particular game was canceled. That's the only remotely bannable offense on my list.

I'm looking into it.