I'm in agreement with you - thanks Sacred.

with that in mind I suggest the following:

Game preferences :-
Known World,
Anon,
Global Press Only,
2 day phases,

Bourse Preferences :-
Investors choose a pseudonym for the purposes of publishing,
A trial of no press between investors.

"I know I'm late to the table on this, but I have to say...a "I'm okay with stabbing only these particular players" list strikes me as the height of metagaming and makes me not want to play in future games with people who either have one or think it would be a good idea to have one.

Play each game as it lays. "
You misunderstand my reason for having that list. None of the players on this list have ever stabbed me in the past and I didn't add these people to this list due to actions they have committed against me in the past.(sorta)

You make it on to the list if you meet me in real life.

@kaner. Not the preferences I like the most, but yeah, we can give it a try. Consider me as an investor.
The good news with "no press between investors" is that it won't take too much time. :)

@Guaroz - let's give it a go, kind-of a see-saw thing, let's see how the other end of the spectrum works ;)

PM me you nickname for the game and I'll store it away until the game starts.

The list thing was a joke - I am sure. Absolutely pointless as a strategy - each game has to be played as it comes, just as each game has changes as it progresses and priorities change.

@kaner. Perhaps you should open a new thread, in order to recruit more people. Who isn't following (or muted) this one may not be aware we're starting a new Bourse. I'd start it with the updated set of rules, so that who didn't follow this thread can ask for clarifications, if he thinks he needs.

yah - I think I just might.

@Butterhead: "that would give the bourse players WAY too much power, and take ALL the fun out of the regular game. how much fun would it be knowing you had to play exactly how everyone else wanted or else you would be replaced in the winter."

That would be true if a player would be eliminated and have no further role in the game or the bourse.

However, in making this suggestion, it was intended for the players to ALSO be bourse players, and the bourse players also have the potential to become game players. So, for example, in the last game you would have been a bourse player, and would likely have voted for yourself to continue to lead the country. I would have been able to attempt a coup, or a hostile takeover and take over the leadership of a country. This is actually similar to real life corporate situations, where many board members are significant shareholders, and Government leaders need to placate their constituents.

Ahh I see what you are getting at now. your first message didn't make that very clear

I realized from your reaction that I did a poor job in describing it.

With the better explanation, what are your thoughts on it?

I'd be open to trying it out sure thing.

I'm good for the next bourse. Anon could work well potentially so let's try it and see. I assume though that the GM will be able to know who's playing, otherwise a person could be both a player and an investor - or are we open to having a cross over? Could be fun!?

I suppose we could have an Anon gunboat game, and no communication between investors, this would allow players to also be investors....

kaner i'm not sure this would allow players to also be investor. Even in a gunboat, a player knows his own moves 1 turn in advance on investors. IE, he could not buy, or probably he would sell, the currency of a player he's about to stab. I can make other examples, if needed.

True Guaroz, but the playing investor who thinks he's going to go well on the board could put his money behind himself, only to be stabbed by someone else and lose a bundle.

Conversely, a player may effectively short-sell their own currency by making dumb moves to run down his currency, buy back in and then start playing properly.

I see a players being able to be investors having even more variables in gameplay. If the game itself was not gunboat it could be even more crazy.

Amby, my point is that in the Bourse-game, an investor who is also a player has an unfair advantage over those investors who are not players. Because he'd know the moves of a player (himself) one turn in advance over other investors.
No matter how this would be crazy. No matter if someone might not be able to use this advantage. If it's not fair then it's not funny, IMHO.

- - - -

If we want to try a Bourse-Variant following this idea, we could do this way:

- All players are investors and viceversa. No only-investors or only-players allowed.

So all positions would be equal and nobody would have unfair advantages over someone else.
Since it'd be perfectly fair, you could play it even in a Full Press game. This would be CRAZY & FAIR! :)

That's not crazy Guaroz. That's way too sensible ;-)

I'd be happy GM'ing a bourse for such a game. 14 players = 14 investors. Full press etc...

But I would suggest either:
1. the game itself is anon, or
2. the bourse players choose a nickname (known only to the GM and themselves)

@kaner. What would be the benefit making Anon a Full Press game? Also, after my first message, anybody would guess who I am, so any benefit would be lost :)
The 2nd item looks having no flaws, but still I cannot see what the benefit would be. Can you please explain?
BTW, IMHO what makes interesting having all "investorplayers" known is that you can have diplomacy on both levels on the same private chat. Or you could have someone as ally on the Market and as enemy on the Map. Or in a large map, say KW901, Spain could have diplomatic relationships with France & Germany for military matters and with Khazaria & Srivijaya for financial matters. Can you see any flaw that I can't?

I'd suggest the game buy-in being not too cheap, instead. So, if someone decides to suicide on the Map to have an advantage on the Market, at least he has a price to pay.

allrighty then fully known players - both in Bourse and in-game.

what's an appropriate buy-in for this do you think - 50 ? 100?

Ah that's hard! The higher the bet, the lower the chance that someone suicides, but also the lower the chances that 15 people join. I really don't know, we should just try some.

No, 100 looks hopeless. I'd try with 50. If 15 people join quick, next time we could try higher. If it takes a week then 50 is right. These were the lucky cases.
Otherwise, we see... if we gathered 11-14 people we could retry with 40. If they were 8-10 we could retry with 30. If we had to go under 30 then it's just not a good idea and we should find a different way to discourage suicides. :)

i dont get this. what are you all discussing?

we're discussing the parameters for the next game of bourse. Once we come to a conclusion I'll start a new thread advertising it and explaining the rule-set.

I agree, 50 would be a good bet!