This is unrelated to the question of multi-accounting, but I am not fond of anonymous games for other reasons. I think that knowing who you are facing plays an important part of the game, that anonymous games cannot capture. People argue that you can have prejudices towards other people if the games are anonymous, but what is so wrong with that. You should know the other players, and play to their strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure that in the actual diplomacy of WWI, personalities and characteristics of the leaders played a vital role in the negotiations, so why not in the board game. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think that anonymous games are lacking a key component to the game.

I am in an anonymous (non-gunboat) game where the fact that both England and Italy never seemed to issue an order is bizarre. But it is my understanding that Kestas put some automated monitoring in place to watch for that kind of abuse.

Pro-tip: only join games with very high buy-ins.

disagree, PPSC games with high pots often afll apart due to point farmming and defensive play, people agree to a draw very quickly to protect their point investment.

better to play low pot with people who have lots of Dpoints.

I am playing in my first anonymous game - was not even aware the feature existed until recently - and I must admit I am enjoying the liberating feeling of being able to play without worrying about your long term character and more importantly going into a game without any baggage whatsoever.

Perhaps this is a product of having only played league and tournament games throughout the summer - which can get tiresome on occassion.

Perhaps it could be possible to incorporate anonymous games into the tournaments - e.g. the GFDT final.

Remember, you are only anonymous until the game ends...

yeah - that's the fun bit. I think anonymous games might encourage more end of game statements too. as you want to discuss the game with knowledge of who people are after the game.

It's really the baggage that people bring into games that can become annoying. x always allies with y; what out for z he is a little weasel and stabbed me many times in previous games. owww - look at this guy with 5,000 we should all gang up on him.

I understand that people are just looking for an edge over their opponents, but it makes for a cleaner game focused more on planning moves and alliances within the game and removes a lot of annoying external factors. In my opinion.

The problem with anonymous games is you may inadvertently be kind to someone you loathe. :)

thank you ag7433, i think that somes up my problem with certain existing games perfectly!!!

All valid points above...

I am just wondering whether the offer of anonymity is attracting the worst in some players? My time as a mod on a site soon revealed just how often people use fake accounts (multiples) to support their real persona in cases of arguments and disputes. And not just the kids, we had an Oxford don doing it, as well as one particularly self-impressed lecturer from a Red Brick.

When the game ends you find out who the people are anyway so where's the problem flash?

I think he means that if someone creates another account, how would anyone know unless concerns were flagged up with a mod.

Best advice flashman, is to email a mod. Not spoken to you in a while, so hope all is well.

I am well, and a lot better than the England cricket team.

Kestas has some montioring going on, I believe, to check for similar IPs and subnet and the like. Some pattern recognition stuff that will alert him and the mods if something suspicious happens.

I suspect that someone is playing from school and at home - delays between moves and different IPs, but otherwise extremely helpful to each other.

dont suspect unless they go into unbreakable allaince....when ever i play Gunboat i will support the usual moves like if france is at burgundy i will support to belgium(if im england) to try and convince him that i am on his side.

and someone accused me of cheating when i wasnt