And just so we all understand what we are dealing with here, sunshine up there was kicked out of France early, threw a tantrum that even impressed me (and i throw some good ones) then went the rest of the game clicking only ready to make it as long as possible which he freely admitted was in order to cause a draw with him in it. Later, as his tantrum deepened, he tried to give Russia the victory by killing himself all the while making veiled accusations of cheating. He was successful on one account. At the end he punctuated it with some racial epithets, and went on his way to slumber.

Bravo Sydney, Bravo, I will try to better you at some point in the future.

@SantaSolomon - By "racial", did you mean "religious" or the jew pipe dream?

well he brought African Americans into it, and people of different sexual backgrounds

So it was a triple crown, Race, Religion, Sexual orientation.

Only one epithet now that i look at it, but i dont think he meant them complimentary.

sorry, my bad- i didnt see the rules. i know its early on, but the supported move seems puzzling to me. may be it's there as a mind game.

Players still support each other in Gunboat. Alliances are still important. And so is communication, but that communication must be unspoken (for example, supporting an other powers unit can communicate a desire for cooperation. Some experienced gunboaters have refined this unspoken communication into an art form).

Lol Santa- unless you have multiple accounts- I've not played u before. C'est interessant, ca!

i was talking about all those forum posts and PMs you spewed at me about a week ago

please, somebody, anybody, check my IP, my game history, anything, I havnt had another account on this site in 4 years before i created this one.

If the player in question knew another player's name by an outside means, you'd probably have a valid case of meta. If the player did something you didn't like but isn't in the rules, you are not going to get much of a result. From what I've gathered, this is more of the later.

It is fairly easy to determine who's who in an anonymous game. Especially if you've played other games with them before. When the green dots were first introduced I argued as much, but no one seemed to care.

I think that while you are right, Geofram, it is really the first two or three years that matter (potentially) as far as anonymity goes, and those years are still fairly anonymous.

To clarify:
1) It is against the rules to accuse someone of cheating if they have not.
2) It is not against the rules to say you know who someone is in an anon game [and as noted is a frequented strategy].
3) It is against the rules to make cheating allegations in any way other than email to the mods.

Oh, and its also against the rules to multi-account...

@Santa - http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?userID=1625

"Banned by a moderator: Forgotten previous account" as I said, I havnt had another account since the ones I made 4 years ago, before this account

I tried to log in by accident last weekend because I went home for the holiday and forgot my name had no space in it. When I did tt said it was banned. For all i know its been banned for 4 years. I believe there is one with an underscore as well.

A few games ago I was Turkey in a juggernaut Russian alliance that I had entered by chance. Just after Austria was vanquished thanks to an Italy that we convinced to stab him, I resolved to shift my defensive fleets into a full assault on Italy. To make sure that Italy and Russia would not collaborate against me, when asked whether I was sure I could trust Russia, I lied to Italy that Russia and I knew each other in real life.

Convinced he was suddenly alone, Italy alienated Russia and appealed to everyone else on the field, yelling "R-T Jugg, R-T Jugg" and as I crushed his formerly Austrian holdings, when I pointed out that he had been offered the same alliance at the start of the game, I also added that the claim that we knew each other at all had been a total fabrication.

@uclabb

For several of the personalities here, knowing their identities can be key in manipulating and controlling their actions regardless of what year it is. It also allows you to search and compile their previous games, creating a surprisingly accurate representation of what they'll do next. More than once I've completely ousted and reversed a stab based solely on the fact that I noticed the player had stabbed as the same country in the same year with a relatively similar position in the game.

Which is why being able to determine who's who in an anonymous game is such a big deal. The only reason I play anonymous over public is because most players don't know how to still figure out the identities of everyone, and that gives me an advantage. But in a fair world, anonymous would truly mean anonymous.

I'm pretty sure I'm agreeing with figle when I say Santa did nothing wrong.

God...phew...I can't read ALL that crap up above. But, let me just say this: Since I am a paranoid schizophrenic multiple personality, you never know WHO the hell is gonna show up in your game. So...someone MIGHT try to "identify" me by something I say, a key phrase, etc....but knowing that it is me has NOTHING to do with how I will play the game. Sometimes I am the most loyal ally you ever had. Sometimes I am just a backstabbing asshole. That being said...uh....why would you believe the lies that another player tells you about another player??? ANYTHING someone tells you is ONLY being told to you because it will give THEM the advantage - NOT YOU! So if somebody tells me that Italy is actually being played by the resurrected Jesus Christ....I'm gonna suspect that it is actually Zombie Christ raised by the druids to wreck havoc upon all mankind. Don't believe anything anyone says...well...unless it's me, of course...because I am altruistic and love you all...

Sorry I should clarify, those posts are distinct.
1) Clarification of things previously posted
2) A reminder to the O.P. of the site rules.
3) A link to your previous account which I know was not a multi (I wrote that message).