This has been suggested as a possible option, in the development forum, but not as a default site-wide. I am planning to do something similar with the Champions' league I am organising.

I disagree somewhat. Unless the game is specifically set up as a Mentor or a Showcase or something special (Such as the Dinner with the Borgias game I played here) I think that people's correspondence should be private and should end when the game ends.

agree with Edi. while it would be interesting to see how other players correspond, it would kind of be an invasion of privacy.

i wouldn't mind having eog statements added as a post game option though.

I think it would be great if there was a way we could pull 5 or 10 games, disguise who the players were and post them with all messages shown.

I'm with Danger, it'd be a great way to show new players what a real game of diplomacy looks like, without giving away the strategies of the players taking part in it.

that would be great dangermouse.
if you took games that involved top players, it would help not only noobs, but mediocre players too (i.e. me).

I like this - it's fun :)

Maybe you can make it optional?

And, actually, it might have a positive effect - people will think a bit more before writing if they knew it is going public?

well like Danger said we would disguise who the players were so that people wouldn't know their tendencies if they ever played a game against them, but I agree that people might be hesitant to say certain things if they know the whole site would be reading it.

As I say, I am planning on doing this manually with the two-game TGM Champions' Trophy, involving seven of the top League and GFDT players.

btw, disguising player names wouldn't necessarily work... I bet I could tell you whose press it was from people I've played pretty easily. Some players like Rait barely take any detective work at all.

I think the idea was for the game to be used to show newbies how the game works, not to give experienced players an edge over the current kings of the site, although that is a good idea Ghost:]

Well, there's another thing you could do to help even the good players, they'll learn to try new styles of press.

no

Optional at best. A magician shouldn't be forced to reveal their secrets.

Of course it wouldn't be obligatory.

maybe we could offer an incentive to encourage the players.

e.g. extra-chips to play more games with

i imagine there are many 'epic' games played that deserve the attention of others, even if player-names are kept anonymous

Yes, I've had some moments where I wished people could see what I was saying, because I literally "played everyone like a fiddle."

Might be a nice option on top of an anonymous game option if that is ever added either.

Onar, it's easy to feel like that but this isn't always the case. I know that I've heard many EOG's where people think they've very adeptly manipulated players, and those who they didn't manipulate is because they are stubborn... Well it's not said so obviously, but the tone and idea is there, and I find it humorous to see how much people believe a game has revolved around their interactions with other countries, when they forget that every country has five other people they're talking to.

People also tend to forget that revealing press won't necessarily reveal the mind of a successful player. Press is naturally a distillation and diffraction of true intentions and reasoning. Just because you can see the press doesn't mean you'll understand what they're doing. I think for the purposes of teaching people, EOG statements are much better because, granted the EOG is honest, you will have the chance to see inside their head. Obviously, there's no guarantee an EOG is honest. =)

After reading the first few posts containing the two main opinions and deciding the rest were probably redundant, I'm going to go ahead and propose this just be added as a possible variation. It could be decided before the game starts, like WTA vs. PPSC, and players would know whether they were joining this type of game or not. You know, just another feature, somewhere in the middle (not very high or low priority) of the big to-do list in the sky.