**without...

@ray - if you don't want to play non-anon (or normal/classic) games with your friends then you don't have to.

I take it as given that they will strategize and negotiate in real life and consider it a feature. (and it's also only fair to tell the other players at the begining of the game - for example - which player happens to be living in the same house as you.)

Otherwise EVEN if the game is supposed to be anon we would be able to figure out which country each other was playing.

I would not play an anon game involving my house mate.

furthermore, IF you care to check my profile, you will see that it specifically says i prefer WTA to PPSC, i could also add that i prefer non-Anon games, and do not want live game pmer's to send me messages.

This information is something which i think Centurion could use to his advantage (to avoid what he calls meta-gaming), however if he did that would be guilty of meta-gaming by his own definition.

"- no, they are not on equal footing, first time players have no experience of playing diplomacy, and while nobody knows this the fact influences the game"

Yeah, in the fall of 1901, and usually not until 1902. The fact of the matter is, you can't go and check the history, see they've never played, and allow it to alter your view on whether or not to ally with them. They get the same chance to get an ally as anyone.

Let's face it. You see a first timer, and more often then not, you probably assume he's either someone you can control, or someone you can knock out easily. (That's the universal "you" by the way)

"As i prefer to make friends on this website by playing non-anon"

You are aware they tell you the names after the game is done. You can go send a private message afterwords. It's not a super secret.

Dip is a social game. In the FTF tournament I went to, most people had played together several times, knew the others' personalities and reputation, nothing was anon except for those of us who had not previously been to one of these tournaments. Because we were blank slates, I think people assumed we were noobies, they mentally "wrote us off" and that assumption helped my son surprise (read STAB) the Australian national champ, effectively denying him the victory in the final toruanment game.

I think all these mental gymnastics are part of the game, the way it was meant to be played. Gunboat and anonymous are not the original, they are variants, IMHO.

Anonymous games are more fair in the case of a game where the creator some of the players know each other, but not all. To do otherwise would leave the newbies at a disadvantage since they wowuld have less information about past tendencies.

"You are aware they tell you the names after the game is done. You can go send a private message afterwords. It's not a super secret."

yes, but there is still a big difference. I play in the leagues and really enjoy repeated games against the same players, and telling things like 'oh it wouldn't be the same as last time, THIS time you can trust me...' it's all about building up this relationship DURING the game and building a relationship with a faceless country does not feel the same - in my subjective view. I don't claim this as a universal truth, or that nobody should play anon. (unlike what i've been putting forward as a 'reasonable' definition of meta-gaming... but then i've read stories of flying dutchmen and the players who consider them fair game, my view may be slightly biased, though i DON'T think the majority of players feel the way centurion1 does.)

Jeez, you do know you can talk in anon games, right? There's all kinds of social interactions.

If you need to know exactly how someone has played France in there past three games then I would assume anon is not your cup of tea. If you just want to test your social abilities then maybe anon is the way to go.

@Dpddouglass: agreed and perfectly fine, but i'd prefer to play a few trial games (with friends) to build up this kind of knowledge instead of losing the personal feel.

In summary:
non-anonymous, press: I lose because everybody gangs up on me.
gunboat: I lose because . . . I don't know why, actually, I just always manage to.
anonymous, press: good!
=)

@Crazy
ftf dip is definitely a social game. I think as the game has evolved from PBM to PBEM to sites like this and BOUNCED, it has moved away from that and become more of a 'pure' strategy game, with the negotiations simply being the part that makes the strategy MUCH more complex than, say, Chinese checkers. That's the way I tend to play the game, which I think is reflected in my commentary on the SoW, and ultimately, if you want to say that anonymous play encourages anything, that's what it tends to encourage.

@ChestRockwell : i rarely bother looking up a player's history.

i don't NEED to know, i prefer to know who they are. Some people remember a face better than a name, others build their relationship on first impressions. Others still are more concerned by the grammar that a player uses. BUT i personally prefer not to play anon games.

The fact is these meta-gaming questions are not valid.

However you could allow players to hide their history. I would not object to that one bit.

"Virtually everything is 'metagaming'. It's become a meaningless term."

Putin33 + infinity.

@orathaic
On the rare occasions that I do play a non-anonymous game, I definitely do extensive research on the other players, looking at their profiles, their website if one is listed, and trying to read their posts on the forum. The idea isn't just to figure out whether they like to stab or not, but also to find ways in which I might be able to make an emotional or social connection that makes my diplomacy more effective.

@orathaic - Let's agree to disagree and play a nonanon game one day!

@peterwiggin, i don't have a problem with other people doing that kind of research. I personally don't find it is worth the effort (the amount by which it increases my enjoyment of the game is not worth the time it takes - i'm playing for funsies and while playing diplomacy can be fun, researching diplomacy players is less fun...)

@Chest, i'll pm you. But i'm pretty much agreeing to disagree.

@pw - now that's kinda scary! :P

@figle
hey now I got the idea from an article. I think it was meant for people playing by mail, back when it was common to phone in orders to the GM!

Figle + 1. I don't think I'd have the patience for something like that peterwiggin, the most I have ever done is check peoples win/defeat/draw rates

I just like non-anon so I can do a quick check for Multis and people who CD and steer clear.

For high point games I like to do a bit of research but most high point games I've found lately have been anon.

the best games are when you know who the 7 are but you don't necessarily know who is who at the beginning. That way, you screen out CDs and Multis but you also are prevented from metagaming. though after a while, it usually gets pretty easy to figure out who is who from their writing styles.

yeah apparently I'm really easy to pick out in live games.

I often join games with friends as us all anonymous, and it's pretty easy to pick me out too, apparently, peter. So, we can form a club.

One thing I do in F2F games that I've found the Webdip equivalent of (and I think someone was irked by earlier in this thread) is watching for NMR's. If Austria gets stuck in a long line trying to grab fast food or Germany takes an extended bathroom break, I make sure to hop on that. Same goes for people who have two minutes to phase change in 24 hour games but haven't shown up.

I like anonymous games. I don't think it matters if some people figure who is who during the course of the game. By that stage there are far more important considerations, but I think it helps reduce certains types of bias at the start of the game: for example, too inexperienced, too experienced, plays a certain opening depending on the power (for example, as Italy player A always attacks Italy), has resigns on the record, is unpleasant in the forum etc. Plus it is fun to find out who is who at the end of the game.

Because it takes away these types of biases, I think anonymous games are the *pure* diplomacy.

Frank, I totally agree. Semi-anonymous, recruited from the forum is the best way to play on this site. Nearly always makes for a *good* game. The only downside is the players can be too good (for me).
*good = plays to maximize position (i.e., played to win; if not win then draw; if not draw then survive; if not survive then influence the outcome); does not pre-arrange alliances (before the game); does not NMR; does not CD.

I prefer anonymous. Mostly to protect me from myself. i don't want to see other peoples names/points/records because I know it will affect my gameplay. I want my gameplay to be pure of any prejudice towards a certain player.

"Because it takes away these types of biases, I think anonymous games are the *pure* diplomacy."

I agree that it takes away these biases, but not that this makes the game any more/less *pure*. (as i hope i made clear when ranting about what is *not* meta-gaming)

I guess it depends on what you mean by *pure* diplomacy.
For me *pure* does not necessarily mean better. I am sure-face-to-face has elements that Internet diplomacy does not have, which makes it exciting in its own special way. I mean, pure, in the sense that anonymous webdiplomacy is more pure, in that it is stripped down. that is, the game is reduced to its fundamental elements: diplomacy, strategy and tactics; it's the message box and the map, with no further information.

spyman, I knew there was a reason I liked you.