No it wouldn't be metagaming - you would have to game with that person to be metagaming. In this case you are simply excercising your right to not play with a someone who you don't want to.

But I am affecting the outcome of the game by affecting the players within it. This is just for the discussion of course.

Blocking someone doesn't affect games that are already on-going. They only affect games that haven't started - as they can no longer join games that you are participating in.

Dee-e-e-e-eeep...

@YCHTT - how many have done that to you now?

It takes a very mature player inside a community with a very mature gaming culture to overcome this kind of issue. We really do not have that here. The whole concept of blocking players in the first place, while tempting is in itself immature, unless said players are blocked for play behaviors such as excessive NMRing and game abandonment reasons. Of course the premise I am advocating assumes that players such as the author of this post who has probably earned himself multiple 'mute' and/or 'block' results from players, takes on a more reasonable gaming personna inside a Dip game than he does in the forums.

It strikes me that the larger question being asked here is whether or not it is acceptable to bring your personal bias against a person (from the forums or elsewhere) into a Dip game. In that respect if you cannot overcome your contempt for someone, then blocking a player seems like the better path of valor. Yet the mark of a truly mature Dip community is where you have players that love the game more than they dislike each other, and can set aside prior in *and* out of game gripes for the sake of a better Diplomacy experience. I'd like to see that happen here.

In my experience operating on the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) principle is often the best practice when dealing with conundrums like this one. Having said that - since I have been here in this community I have noticed that it has matured from it's early laissez faire attitude towards rule enforcement and play-style, towards a more nuanced and articulate set of beliefs & behaviours that are becoming more emergent. Now I am not saying that we have arrived at a perfect diplomacy playing culture here, but I think that certain members have progressed this site incrementally towards a better and more mature scene. We will certainly continue to have deeply held perspectives about how the game 'should' be played that will clash against other perspectives, but being able to discuss these points of view and to choose games that suit you based upon these particular game settings is what this site is all about.

Personally I make use of the block function to discriminate against some players because of their poor track record when it comes to CDs NMRs & all-holds, and this is from games that I have been in that were ruined by this behaviour. But I don't use it on the basis of personality. I think that to do so would be an immature act.

Strider - I don't know how to see who has me blocked and I really don't have trouble getting in games. This was more to get conversation going as I try to be a better community member in the forum than I have been. My gaming persona is totally different and my stats both in my former webdip life and here reflect my skill and attitude. Now, I have issued all hold orders for a single phase before to male a point, but I don't NMR or CD.

You can't metagame in a game which does not actually take place.

This is an argument of definitions though. I'd think the clause on metagaming's intent was to prevent outside factors from affecting in-game decisions. If we assume this to be the case, than that could include personal feelings about another player as a result of forum interaction (I don't actually believe we can enforce this if the rule meant that, but I believe it's important to establish the "spirit" of the rule)

Surely you can't make an "in game decision" about a person who is not a player in that game, though?

exactly, you can't affect the game if that player is not IN the game.
But assuming you did play with a person you detest,

That may be a fine line but we make alliances based on who we can trust and past track records absolutely come into play and even SHOULD come into play. If someone stabbed you in the past and while it may have hurt, if it was a well done and strategic stab, then you simply need to look beyond that stab and not take it as personal. But if a player had earlier demonstrated a knack for stupid non-strategic stabs, critical NMR's and so on or if this person writes rarely, or is hard to negotiate with, then you really do need to use this knowledge to your benefit and that past experience is fair to use in your evaluation of whom to trust.

But because someone may have stabbed you and made you cry, that reason is simply not to be accepted. If a person happens to be a blowhard in the general forums should also not come into play during a game. That's like not siding with someone because they are say Black, or Jewish or Italian, or (insert bigotry here). Treat each game on the merits of THE GAME.

Sure you can. You affect it at the highest level when someone hoi have blocked wants to join but can't. That totally affects the game by not only altering who is playing but potentially who gets which nations.

nope, the question is if this is metagaming... where you let a player in one game affect how you play in another. In this situation, you do not have that player in the game, ergo, no metagaming...period. Your position is groundless. Argue all you want YCHTT but you simply don't have the facts on your side.

Thinking about it further, your position could not be more wrong.
If we were in a new game sign up and you signed up, late I come around and join as well. If you dropped out because you could not play in a game with me for whatever reason ...you simply can not work with me and it will affect how you play the game, and you drop out (before the game starts) then that would be admirable and the right thing to do. You did not let things from outside the game affect how you played.

If however you followed through and played the game with the mindset that you would attack me at all costs, THAT would be metagaming! Blocking can indeed be the more noble of the actions (though I agree outside influences should never play a part in how you handle each game shy of knowing a players tendencies of course)

just suck it up, put the past behind you and move forward. Only children let outside things influence their game decisions!

@Tom - "where you let a player in one game affect how you play in another." That is *not* the definition of metagaming. Metagaming is letting the outside world affect the in game world. Some is permissible (looking at stats and play styles, reliability, etc) while others (threatening to kill their kids if they don't follow you moves) are not. Not all metagaming involves two games nor is all metagaming wrong.

But I can agree that, by the definition of metagaming, influencing the possibility of how a future game would play is outside the game affecting outside the game, not inside, so let's revise the question to "Is it morally acceptable on a personal level". To me it isn't, but I'm not going to hold it against someone who finds it acceptable and/or even necessary.

no it is not,
" letting the outside world affect the in game world."
If it were snowing outside and caused you to miss your orders...not metagaming is it?

It deals with outside personal influences. It could be a persons posting in the general forums, it could even be allowing someone to live because you feel bad they just lost their job, it's how you deal with the players IN THE GAME and has nothing to do with pregame things such as blocking another. Blocking another may very well be petty and should be frowned upon in most circumstances but it is in absolutely no way considered Metagaming in the LEAST. Not in this world, not in any world other than your mind I suppose? If you wish to try and push some sort of definition upon us and claim superiority, it's not working. We all know what the intent of the term means and your attempt to manipulate the strict definition falls short of that meaning we all know.

Maybe blocking/mute can be better split
1)Block messages from a twat on forum. Mute Thread or Mute Player
2)Block from playing other player because of; language/RR/other
but require inclusion of a reason to be entered that can be moderated if required.

Perhaps even provide players with list of whom has muted or blocked them. (and liked or +1'ed, no need to be totally negative here)

YCHTT did ask me if I'd blocked him (I hadn't) about a game he tried to join but was prevented from joining. He did end up joining so must have found out... and probably started this thread after that :)

Bravo

Myself, I would have no problem doing away with blocking abilities.
Maybe replaced by a short time before a game began and before anyone knew who was playing what power where each player could see the list of players in the game and THEN they could confirm or drop out. Such a confirmation would help eliminate first year NMR's and the dropout ability allows players to not be required to play with those they detest for whatever reason, personal or otherwise.

That would also allow the Mute to work as it is.

@Tom - I was just pointing out that metagaming does not have yo involve two or more games. I already agreed thus isn't metagaming and asked about personal moral views regarding it. Ask a mod if threatening a person in real life to male them do something in game is metagaming and they will say yes. But no, this isn't actually metagaming. So don't get hung up on the OP and let the subject evolve a touch.