I wish all games were anonymous. Pre-existing alliances/feuds SUCK, and every game should be fresh and new. That said, I wish we could 'block' certain players, so they couldn't join your games and you couldn't join any games you were in. Some players are just a pain in the ass and not fun to play with.

I don't have pre-existing alliances in non-anon. However I will check the past history of the player in question to decide if he is worthy of being my ally.

I have no problem with that, and other players are welcome to do the same.

I understand the second part of your post. The first part is easily overcome by a player simply never joining a non-anony game. So there is no need to make all games conform to such a standard, as it's not like we are forced to play or randomly selected to play games in one format or the other. Clearly there is a matter of preference involved, not dissimilar to choices related to variant, phase length, and press options. Your comments are well-received, regardless.

Fasces explains it best. It's not that I *will* definitely ally with someone, but if you stab in in 4/5 games, odds are I'm not going to trust you (nor should anyone reasonably expect me to do so).

One of the first games I played on this site, back when it was still olidip, I encountered another player who said "If this alliance works, we can continue it in other games." I promptly stabbed him rather irrationally simply because I considered that meta-gaming.

I dont think it makes a difference. In fact, I have perhaps 3 games with my boy butterhead. 2 of which i am allied with him, 1 of which I am at war with him. Due to this being such a tight knit community, I do like an anon game to escape a) judgment of myself and others (oooh, playing a game against fasces, gotta keep an eye on him) b) any relations to other games that i am in

I always prefer non-anonymous, and while I feel like I have some respect after playing this stupid game for 30 years, many people here don't know me so it doesn't matter, and I am still known to stab my "friends" or well-known players when the moment is right ... gotta keep 'em oth their toes!

It's all part of the game isn't it? I have tosay that I try to ''shake'' things up in different games. I've played as an ally who supported another player to the win despite myself, if played the irascible bastard to can't help but stab on every opportunity, I've also played every play style inbetween - the 2-way, 3-way, 4-way draw agreements from the start etc...

I like to be a ''new'' player on each game - and I know some of the players I have allied so strongly in the past will stab with without hesitation if there wasn't incentive for them not to do so.

to ally or not to ally, that is the question in everygame. And judgments have to be made in regards to that. In the end - you win some, and you loose some.

Anonymous gaming is good in that sometimes you find yourself allied with a player who as promised in a previous game that they will stop at nothing to destroy you in the next game that you play with them :D lol!

Non-anon gives more to think about. It seems like a much deeper experience to me. If two friends are playing, then great. I will, maybe, figure it out. If I have the time an inclination I will study past games. In anonymous games it is much more sterile.

Even non-anon on here is nothing compared to f2f where you have to know who still owes who $10...

I hardly look at the names except at the beginning of the game to see WHO is playing and their records, and towards the end to see WHAT people have done at the ends of games that both I've been in and those I haven't been in.

See, I disagree. I feel like each game should b a totally self contained experience. You looking at my game history to see if you can trust me is kind of bogus. I want you to trust me because I've convinced you with my words. Besides, I take the temperature of the board at the start of each game before deciding if I want to be a scoundrel or honorable. Does anyone share my view?

Much prefer anonymous.

I don't see if i can trust you, I try to get a feel of style and skill level, but i don't care if you go stab crazy one week or something. I honestly stab people when I see benefit or a risk in not doing so, and never do so out of spite for a certain player.

I personally don't care either way, I play both Anon and non-Anon...

I enjoy both as well, and I don't think it should be a question of one versus the other - they play completely differently. The only problem with Anon games is when an unreliable player joins and CDs.

Oli - would it be possible to set a minimum reliability rating to join a game (minimum # of phases/maximum % missed)? I think that would resolve a major drawback of anonymous public games.

Great feedback guys, thanks. Personally, I like face-to-face games with friends, and if anything, knowing who's playing only makes me want to take them down more. But I have heard a few people complain here about the same people always forming alliances in non-anonymous games, which I can see could be a problem. I also like anonymous play too, because it does let you play with no preconceptions and, as has been pointed out, let's you start each game completely fresh each time.

I actually had to stop playing with my old group of friends -- the ones who introduced me to the game! -- because I got too good, leading them to gang up on me all the time. :(

Anon games are great because you escape outside judgement, i.e. stuff from other games, etc. And i dont get people like mongoose and whisky hawking on me. :) But non-anon games are also fun because you know people and can use that to help decide on the faithfulness or lack of in an ally. But you run the risk of metagaming/unwarranted stabs because of it.