but if it is not gunboat then you can expect the players to talk to each other about who they are. So it is possible to confirm who is whom (via private messages) whether you know them in real life or not.

basically the only way to prevent this kind of 'cheating' or playing against the spirit of the rules is to play anon no messaging - or you can look at anon games as a chance to play without revealing to other players you history (thus them not knowing what to expect by looking at your past games) which is an advantage you can give up...

I'm not sure orathaic, I think the anon games allow for more meta-gaming, not less. Meta-gamers don't need to use in-game messaging if they're acquaintances in real life, and there's no way to check a game's participants to see if they've played together in the past. I prefer to be able to check out the players pre-game to see if any of them have history. That way I can make an informed decision about whether or not to join the game.

Yeah, I'm not sure Anon regular games make a whole lot of sense, in the environment we're in where people don't seem to understand the concept of honor. Too easy to send an email and say "OK, I got Italy. What'd you get?"

Hardin, I agree that what happened is pretty crappy and unfair to the rest of the players involved.. However, I have to snicker at bit at jbalcorn's comment, that people don't seem to understand the concept of honor... in reference to a game that encourages backstabbing :-)

anonymous games simply have pros and cons. i prefer to use anonymous games to play with people who i know without being influenced by my prior knowledge of them. the fact that people can figure each other out is an unfortunate side-effect of knowing them -- once, i realized that i was video-chatting via Skype with a friend who was in a live-anon game with me ^_^ ...

if you're taking the game as a strategic construct, then no, it's not really fair to metagame in any way, shape, or form. but when i play f2f we regularly relax the rules for new players; and for those out there who don't have the luxury of 7 diplomacy-minded friends there should be some leeway granted.

perhaps, though, this could be a case for the eventual creation of pre-game chat? i'm aware of the difficulties in programming it (since communication is handled by country and not by player) but perhaps it might have value in disclosing/discussing these types of situations before the game happens, and while players still have the opportunity to opt-out?

He, I only played 2 live games of Dipl ever before joinign and playing in here - because my friends bought Dipl but it was a too long game for them ...

As for honor - I tend to agree, yet I want to define honor here: playing by the spirit of the game - that is to try to win by 18 SCs, draw if you cannot do that, or try to maximize the SCs in a PpSC if the two other fails. I expect players to adhere to this principle - and be as ruthless about it as they can. Imo helping your rl friend just breaks the general game contract. I do expect players to back stab me - I was furious when I found out that two ganged up on me because they were rl friends (I had no chance of negotiating), or when I was eliminated "because you have the most points and clearly are a better player". If someone backstabs me to reach 18 SCs in a WTA - all cudos and applause to them. They played by the spirit of the game. The others simply don't.

I like anno games also that I am not biased on the number of points someone has (I actually tend to favor allying with people with more points because they tend to play better tactically - and not CD that often. And I don't mind the stab that might come).

I agree that people should know if two are rl friends beforehand and can decide to join or not. Maybe it is okay to give a rl friend help and so on - but all must be aware of that imo.

I host a lot of anonymous games, public style. I also do not play with friends on the game. Am I playing Russian roulette, essentially? Maybe I should quit hosting...