Rules Clarification

Rules for using the site and playing on site.

Re: Rules Clarification

Postby gareth66 » 21 Dec 2014, 22:06

Mr. Rumsfeld wrote:Yes, this is meta-gaming, and constitutes one of several contradictions/hypocrisies in the way the site is used.That being said, meta-gaming is only against the rules because the moderators say so, and then there's the burden of proof. Meta-gaming is far more common than most folks here like to admit. All in all, this is what comes of compromise - which is why compromise is never a good thing (just ask any spy whose identity has been 'compromised'). This is the price paid by Admin and that's how they like it. Two alternatives would be 1) to make the games anonymous and/or 2) to remove rules against meta-gaming (considering that meta-gaming is how real politicians operate in the real world anyway). The classic board game has exactly the right amount of rules - the extra ones merely dilute the experience and open the floodgates to all manner of whining, bitching and complaining. Whether you inform others of your meta-gaming or not, it's still meta-gaming. It really is that simple.


Mr Rumsfeld - please read the title of this thread. It is not a question about philosophy, ethics, and opinions on attitude to the game. It is a question asking for clarification of the site rules, posted in a forum entitled PlayDip Rules. The rules have already been clarified. Please do not deliberately mislead people by what you post in pursuit of a hobby-horse of yours relating to your discontent with how the site operates. In response to a question asking for clarification of the site rules, your answer is categorically incorrect and manifestly unhelpful. If you continue to post in this way your forum access will be suspended.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3380
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules Clarification

Postby Alman » 22 Dec 2014, 03:25

If I didn't like a restaurant, how the food is prepared, how the staff delivers it, what music they play, and the decor, I would just go find a new place to eat rather than hang around, complain, and spread my unhappiness. I doubt you would be forbidden from leaving a place you don't like. Just saying........ ;)
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
Turkey in "Blitzkrieg" PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1459
All-game rating: 1581
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Rules Clarification

Postby rick.leeds » 22 Dec 2014, 13:27

The reason it isn't meta-gaming is that the information gathered as described in the OP is available in a public format.

The meta-gaming rules in relation to this are
17. Cross-game information sharing.
(i) Exchanging ANY information across active games is not allowed.
(ii) Sharing secret information (ie information contained in power-to-power messages or information that cannot be gained from stats or Public Press) on another player from a shared active or archived game (eg Player A warns Player B about Player C using a copied and pasted message from a game Players A and C shared) is not allowed.

18. Game references. Referring players to any game using the game name or number is not allowed.
NB: General references to a player’s style of play are fine, which can be reviewed by using stats, is allowed.
See here.

So, provided a player doesn't share info across active games, share info based on power-to-power messages in a shared game (as Gareth says) and provided a game is not deliberately linked by number or name, there's nothing wrong.

Meta-gaming rules are common across online Dip sites and have had rules against it in ftf tournaments, play-by-mail and play-by-email games for decades, although the specifics as to what it is may differ ;) Obviously these rules have to be set because the published rules don't mention them and aren't intended for the type of play we have here.
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules Clarification

Postby PatCleburne » 08 Jan 2015, 10:17

Hi Rick,

Thanks, this is very helpful. It seems like this is the key tidbit for what I was asking about: "18. Game references. Referring players to any game using the game name or number is not allowed.NB: General references to a player’s style of play are fine, which can be reviewed by using stats, is allowed."

So if I'm Austria, and I'm playing with an Italy who's betrayed the last five Austria's he's played with when he's been Italy, it's fine for me to bring that up generally. But what I can't do is say "in this game, this game, and this game, you opened with Ven to Tyr and Rom to Ven, so I'm a little nervous." Let me confess upfront that I was guilty of this in a recent message, so I'm happy to have received this clarification.

The rule does seem a little fuzzy -- after all, the way players behaved in previous games is just as public as their statistics: you just have to search a little further. So the line does seem somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, I suppose lines have to be drawn somewhere -- and UNLIKE Rumsfeld, I think rules against metagaming are perfectly useful and sensible.

Thanks again for the explanation --

PatCleburne
- "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter — give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself." Patrick Cleburne, 1864.
User avatar
PatCleburne
 
Posts: 92
Joined: 04 Sep 2014, 06:53
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1146)
All-game rating: (1418)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Rules Clarification

Postby rick.leeds » 09 Jan 2015, 15:35

The difference when referring to a game by name/number is that it directly links the past with the present, as it were; it's a direct link between two games. What we want to avoid is a scenario where Player A messages Player B and says "Go and look at game 12345. Diplomacy and you'll see that Player C" did such and such. It's the direct link that we want to prevent.

Player A saying to Player B "I've noticed that Player C is likely to..." means that Player B has the choice of believing Player A or looking into Player B's games to see what she has done in the past. Player B has to put effort into finding the truth out, in other words... and THIS he could have done by himself if he wanted.

In the first scenario, Player B is likely to check the game(s) referred to and this means he may act due to the direct link; in the second scenario, Player B has to put all the effort in himself.

Tbh I didn't consider a situation where, for example, France would message Germany and say something like "in game 67890. Plomdiplacy I noticed you attacked Burgundy straight off. You also did that in 13579. Lacdiplomy and 24680. Amy Diploc. Don't try it this time!" The reason I didn't consider it is that I doubt this is something many players would do - they might find this info but keep it to themselves!

But I still think a direct link between games is fairly obvious meta-gaming: it directly links decisions in one game with events in others, which is part of the definition of what meta-gaming is.
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Site Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest