I'd prefer that.

I don't see the merits of this proposal. Perhaps someone would like to outline it in more detail?

metagaming has nothing to do with anonymous games

If somebody is multiaccounting he doesn't mind it being anonymous anytime.
I'd propose to be able to limit entrance to a game to players with at least X wins, or at least X games played, that way you're sure there aren't those suspicious newly created accounts

That would really suck for new players don't you think?

If somebody wants to do meta-gaming anyway, they can, but it would be much easier to do it in other games. i'm not really talking about dedicated meta-gamers either. This would be meant so you wouldn't be able to join a game because you know someone in it. Once you are in a game, the identities are revealed, and passive pre-game meta-gaming could be eliminated. Actually, I'm not sure if meta-gaming is the right term to use. I am just adding a mystery to who is playing.

How about having all public games' names anonymous, as well as their players in the pre-game phase?

Or you can always do IP checks.

How does one do such a thing? One finds that they could be useful.

Centurian: new players could make their own unlimited new games, that'd allow them to get points/experience/finished games, I'm just tired of multiaccounters

In every game someone is accused of meta-gaming or multi-playing. It is a lot less common than that. If it is happening, and it is a non-gunboat game, then just rally the other players to destroy the strong alliance. It doesn't matter either way. In one game, in Autumn 1902, someone told me that two people were meta-gaming, and said "why bother playing?"...I got them to stick around till 1904, when we saw one "meta-gamer" attempt to stab the other and fail, crippling them both.

Just play the game, if you can't fight back against a strong alliance, why not? How is a meta-gamer different from that?

Humza© Brand Shovels: Your first suggestion is a very good idea, hiding the games name, but I would still make it an option.

Tantris: What I am suggesting is meant to discourage people playing a game just because they know someone playing in that game. What you are saying makes perfecct sense, except it doesn't really have a place here.

Personally, I try to reduce the risk of encountering metagaming by checking the history of players in a game before I join. So, if I see two people who have been in a strong alliance in several games I just don't join a game with them.
Another possibility is joining games with people who are active and well known on the forum.
Jece's proposal would take out both these possibilities, so I don't think it would be a very good idea.

DarioD: If that is what you prefer, this is just an option, so you can avoid it. Nevertheless, if you can't tell one game from another, it's hard to see how meta-gaming can be done. I admit that my proposal is not meant to counter serious meta-gaming.

A further thought: what if we were allowed to submit our preffered rules, and automatically then join any game with those -- wait, that won't work. There are too many options.

How does that stop two friends from joining the same game. They both know they are going to join it and plan to ally no matter what. Meta still happens, but those who would wish to avoid it can't.

Draugnar: It does not. This stops honest players from joining games because they see someone they know.

And that is likely to happen why? And, even if it is, it is bad why? Just because they are playing with someone they know doesn't mean they will ally or be opponents. I will play with CrazyTer anytime. I like her as a friend, but we both ally and stab and fight and it is all in fun. There is nothing wrong with that as we aren't playing to either automatically attack nor can we expect an alliance. We, like most honest players, play together because we enjoy the challenge and the camaraderie.

This seems like a poor solution to a non-issue to me.

It won't prevent multi-accounting or IRL meta-gaming. Also, I like playing games with certain people. Just because I want to play with them doesn't necessarily mean I want to ally with them.

Draugnar and abgemacht: I don't think you understand. This is a suggested option. Yes, that's right: I like playing with people I've met as well. Why would you be opposed to having the option available?

Because it doesn't do anything?

Let's put it in business terms. There is no ROI on Kestas's effort. The "problem" it solves isn't a problem because, as you said, it only limits the honest ones. And the honest ones aren't going to metagame in an illegal manner. The dishonest ones will just PM a link to a game to their friend and they'll both join anyhow. Once the game is underway, it's no different than the present because nations are assigned randomly (albeit weighted) already. So you are fixing a non-problem and wasting valuable development time that could be used to fix real poroblems, like changing to the minimum total points system or improving some other widget (although the site is damn near perfect as it is, thanks Kestas!)

Yes, I think the most important thing to be done is recording information about joined games, but forget all that. Everything can be done eventually. There is a use, as you have quasi-admitted, Draugnar. Joining games with people you know is not at all illegal, so I am indeed only limiting honest players. Anonymous pre-game phases are a tool so that players' game stats (good or bad), friendships with other players, memories of players and points do not get in the way of their decision process when joining certain games (ones with this option in use).

Then how is it a fight against metagaming if you are fighting against the honest players? Your subject says it is a tool to fight metagaming. It only fights legit metagaming, something that shouldn't be fought.

Because some people don't even like your "legit" meta-gaming at times! They should be given the option to avoid it.

By the way, I think I should make this more visible so people don't have to read the whole thread:

Anonymous pre-game phases are a tool so that:
* that players' game stats (good or bad)
* friendships with other players
* memories of players
* points
do not get in the way of their decision process when joining certain games (ones with this option in use).

I hope you mean "your" in the generic sense. I don't follow people around and join their games. I don't try to go after someone. The only reason I play the same people on occassion is that they and I are in the Master's Tournament and the Leagues.

I used 'your' to refer to the adjective "'legit'", if you must know, Draugnar.

Ah, the colloquial form. I reread it and it makes sense now. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

When it comes to you I'm used to it ;-)