I went back through the thread and tried to interpret what people meant. This is how I interpreted things (and I know from playing that I don't always interpret things correctly so move your name if it is in the wrong category)

1. kaner406 - prefer non-anon, will play anon
2. mfarb
3. YouCan'tHandleTheTruth - prefer non-anon but will play either
4. Darkarus
5. Alpha@Omega
6. Utom
7. Halt
8. bluecthulhu - prefer anonymous
9. Hirnsaege - prefer anon
10. rexgarum - prefer anon
11. krellin - either (prefer non)
12. didigoose - prefer anon
13. DEFIANT
14. Leif_Syverson - prefer non-anon, will play either way.
15. Dr. Recommended -anon
16. Geronimo
17. Trubbis - either, prefer non-anon
18. RUFFHAUS 8 - either (prefer non-anon)
19. GOD
20. bozo - prefer anon
21. DoubleCapitals - anon, but doesn't really care
22. CubanJedi
23. Mapu - anon
24. y2kjbk
25. Skylin- non-anon, but would play anon
26. Sendric - either
27. Drano019 - prefer non-anon
28. rysk - prefer non-anon
29. LoveDove -either
30. Fischfix
31. KICEMEN17 - anon or non-anon
32.
33.
34.
35.

Only play anon: 2 (Mapu, Dr. Recommended)
Only play non: 0

Prefer non: 9 (kaner, YCHTH, krellin, Leif, Tribbis, RUFFHAUS, Skylin, drano, rysk)
Prefer anon: 6 (bluechtulu, Hirnsaege, Rex, didigoose, bozo, DC)
Doesn't care: 3 (Sendric, LoveDove, KICEMEN17)

abstained: 11 (mfarb, Darkarus, Alpha@, Utom, Halt, DEFIANT, Geronimo, GOD, CubanJedi, y2kjbk, Fischfix)

And not to sway any votes at all but from my perspective, my most enjoyable games on this site have been anonymous. I have had two WW4 games that went the distance and in both of them, diplomacy was alive and dynamic. In fact, RUFFHAUS was an ally in both games and nobody had any idea that it was him. The best thing about anonymous is that everyone starts on an even playing ground as I have found that players tend to be hesitant about being aggressive against the "elite" players.

I have reached my 20 phases and still have my rookie status. I may not be aable to join.

blucthulhu -

I'd propose a different reason: People are hesitant to go against the "elite" players because the elite players communicate and convince the "non-elite" players to be friends instead of enemies. As for people not knowing RUFFHAUS was in the game, anyone who plays him knows him. He's hard to mistake :D

I think you have to wait until that game ends to get the credit.

You would be surprised! He wasn't writing tomes of messages and was much more defensive. That is what is cool about anon - you can try new playing styles without being constrained by your reputation.

As for your first point, you may be right but I also have had my fair share of messages directly stating that "this player is tough so we need to be careful...'.

Baah. I want to attack everyone.

That was to drano.

@blue -

To be honest, messages such as "this player is tough so we need to be careful" are 100% totally cool by me. In fact, I think that's part of the beauty of Diplomacy. It's not just playing the board, there's more to it than that. There's a delicate dance between playing a person's reputation and playing the board. A good player knows how to balance both.

From a simple self-preservation standpoint, which position would you rather be in: Allied to someone in an anon game who unbeknownst to you has a reputation for stabbing close allies, or in a non-anon game with the same person where even though you're allied, you keep an eye out for tricks from them?

Part of the beauty of Diplomacy in my mind is that it isn't played in a vacuum. It wasn't intended to, and if we compare to RL, it shouldn't be. Over time, people develop habits and tendencies. It's a game-within-a-game to figure these habits and tendencies out and use them to your advantage. While there's a fine line to be walked between using knowledge of habits and tendencies to influence play versus straight up metagaming, I think it's a line worth walking as it improves the game vastly.

And let's be honest, anon simply helps the good players anyways. When a good player can mask the fact that they *are* a good player, it allows them to proceed without worrying about whether people will attack them simply because of their name (which I know a few good players who have that concern all the time). Without that concern, the good players will almost always defeat the worse players, that's simply the truth.

@drano

I agree with your view of how to play a non-anon game; when the names are visible people have every right to point to past history of play, reliability rating, number of vowels in the player's name, or whatever else will convince another power to work with you (within the house rules). But I find that style of play less interesting than simply analyzing the messages and trying to decipher personality, play style and trustworthiness. And for those who think that they can figure out who players (i.e. Ruffhaus) are, that's great, but you'll still have to wonder if a player you've never played with might sound like Ruffhaus, or even if someone else has deliberately decided to sound like him as well. The point is decisions rely more heavily on your analysis of the press itself.

Also, from the viewpoint of someone who has not played with most of the people here, I think anon is more welcoming. There are definitely a lot of people who have played here a long time. That's not a bad thing (in fact it's a very good thing, since it seems vdip has a strong community!), but to new players it could be overwhelming. For instance, there could be a fear that players who know each other will gravitate towards each other with the newcomers left out in the cold. Maybe it's the opposite for established players, and they play overly accommodating to newcomers. Or maybe two players have allied with each other the last three games (purely for strategic reasons) and don't want to be perceived as cheaters so they fight against one another in this game, even when it doesn't make sense. Whatever the case, anon minimizes this problem by simply removing (or at least minimizing) those considerations.

The main advantage I can see in non-anon is that it likely leads to a better community for the site (i.e. outside this particular game), as people get to to know each other better and it likely makes for some more entertaining discussion.

My two cents- I'll play either way - but my preference is anon.

not signing up guys, but I watch with interest!
This thread has evolved into non-signup stuff that I felt would be acceptable to comment on? (without hijacking the signup thread of course!!!)

"Good players" are good for a reason, they may develop a reputation as being ruthless or being very calculating and strategic, but they do not get good by making stupid stabs. I would far prefer to ally with a "good" player and keep my eye on him rather than an unknown who may very well be in the habit of making stupid stabs!
A supposed good player is FAR preferred than an unknown. I know the good player thinks rationally and that is someone I can work with! If I get stabbed by him because I let my guard down, then that's a shame on me not him!

...back to the sign up, hurry up and fill the game!!!

Yes, heaven forbid you actually experience it from a player's perspective.

I am a bit too close to appreciate the POSSIBLE pitfalls of the new sea lane rules, it would drive me nuts and nobody needs nor wants that! Trust me, much better to watch it develop from afar. It also gives a better and more objective view!
I do wish this experiment great luck!!!

"I know most of you assbags from your writing styles, and I seriously doubt that I can cloak myself in an anonymous game anyway. "

You don't say. :)

I certainly need more data points to make any real statistical conclusion but it does strike me as bizarre that my two best games in WW4 happened to by anonymous. I consider myself an intermediate level player but I got a very distinct impression that I was able to compete in anon games while not even close in non-anon. My messaging and reactions to messaging were consistent in both varieties and both types had the same mix of elite and not-so-much players. It was just my impression that the veterans tended to cling to each other, for good or for bad, and it was MUCH harder to get into a solid alliance.

In anon games, based just on my skills of diplomacy in that current game, I usually don't have a problem forging good relationships.

When I joined the sites (webdip included) I was somewhat surprised to see anon games. Having only played FtF games I saw no reason for such a option to be placed in the games creation menu. I think knowing your opponent is part of the game. I can't tell you how many times I was gained up on in FtF games because I was "the good player". Sometimes I was able to talk my way out of it, other times I got my ass kicked. It's part of the game IMO. That being said...non anon is my preference but I will play either.

Anon?Non anon? What does it matter? Skill will judge the victors from the losers!

So...yeah don’t care is my vote.

Bluecthulhu, you can believe what you like, but I have played only one game here yet topped the board on the last WW4 game just finished. The supposed better players and veterans didn't shy away from me. In fact, I know some people painted a target on my back being the designer of the game. I managed to do well despite what you claim, my experience tells me your assumption is dead wrong and your PLAY determines how well you do, a "good" player will elevate himself above any minor inconveniences of "reputation" of being good. That being said, a reputation of being flaky... THAT will no doubt haunt a player!

If my PLAY determined how well I do, then I wouldn't see the obvious split between anon and non-anon games. That said, I would play either variant and play as best I can regardless.

blue -

Looking back through some WWIV games of yours, one thing I noticed is that in the games you did poorly in, you picked fights early either without securing diplomatic peace with other neighbors, or when you weren't in the best positions. In one game, you as Amazon, you went all out for Africa early, leaving yourself wide open to Colombia and Brazil to stab. That's not a problem with anon/non-anon, but rather, just a poor choice. In another game, as Central States, you went all out against US when you didn't really have the tactical advantage to do so. Again, just a poor decision in that one. On the flip side, in an anon game as Saudi Arabia, you simply made the right decisions on who to attack/how to attack them. You had a compact, defensive position, and you were able to make gains without leaving yourself wide open.

So I would posit that your success/failure doesn't have much to do with anon/non-anon, but rather, with your tactical and strategic decisions. You had a tendency to leave yourself wide open early, which led to people taking advantage of that.

That said, obviously I'm in agreement with Tom and Alpha and even Halt about what matters. The skill of the person determines how well you do, but IMO non-anon still gives a more interesting game within a game atmosphere that enhances it for everyone.

@rexgarum -

You said: "But I find that style of play less interesting than simply analyzing the messages and trying to decipher personality, play style and trustworthiness." in regards to anon games. I would respectfully disagree 100%. In my time playing Dip, I've found that non-anon games lend themselves to much greater intricacy in Diplomacy precisely due to the fact that people know who the other is. It forces people to work harder to overcome supposed "prejudices" based on past history, which enhances the Diplomacy for everyone. I've found that people use anon as a cloak whereby they either think they can get away with anything (mass lying for example), or as a reason to barely talk to you, which is just bad for Diplomacy in general.

As for getting to know each other better through non-anon and creating a better community: That's EXACTLY what vdip needs. A community feel enhances the game for everyone. Hell, I've played exactly 3 games at redscape, and after the first one alone, I felt more a part of a community than in years over here. Just the ability to chat about things other than the game and shoot the shit a little bit goes a LONG way to improving the site and the game in general. It also reminds us that this *is* a game, and there's something outside of it.

Since we are struggling somewhat to fill this game, we should go with the choice that gets us the most people. Two people say they will only play anon while 0 (or possibly 1) say they will only plan non-anon. Seems to me that getting those two players is better, so whether anon or non-anon is better (purely opinion by the way) is immaterial. Let's just fill the game and get started. Anonymous seems to be the fastest path to that destination.

What the hell,
I will play if...

*You will have me (I am still a newbie I believe), It was waived in the last game for me, I think it would need to be once again.

*I am going away in 2 weeks for a weekend getaway in the mountains (no internet and a wife who would grant me no sex if I did log on!), someone mentioned no weekend processing of orders, I kinda need that but do not want to ask for any delays!

*I prefer non-anon but would not bail on a game just because it was anon.
if it ends up anon, I would like to know the specifics (it is nowhere to be found in the FAQ section). How stringent is this? Can others guess who you are and call you on it (personally, not in public of course), etc... I do not want to abuse any rules or step over any lines, I want to play by the standards (even though I can not find what they exactly are).

drano - you are correct in that I was very aggressive early in those non-anon games you mentioned (although I had to go to war with USA because I predicted that he was about to stab me and I was correct).

However, in my anon games I was just as aggressive. In that Saudi Arabia game you mentioned, I was at war with both Iran and India by year number 4.

I fully understand the joys of nonanon play and really have no serious objection to it but I really do suspect that there is at least SOME advantage that goes to the veterans outside of their ability to conduct better diplomacy.

I think it may be time to make the anon game and start joining up?

Ahhh, I was the USA player you speak of and NO, you did not predict correctly that I was about to stab you! In fact, if you recall we were going to work to stab Quebec together and you called off that attack giving me a line of nonsense how you had to move otherwise. You see, YOU changed the plans we had set up and YOU made the stab.
I was fine with the alliance as long as it worked, YOU made it not work! You were the one who painted a target on my back by talking to others about how you needed to take me out, you had no clue how I played but assumed I was going to be "good" because I designed the game and you attempted to use this against me....did you think that would stay secret? You simply became a liability and not an ally, and when you stabbed me I of course had to change direction and you went down HARD. Frankly, you were not playing a good diplomatic game with no help to your ally and only thinking about YOUR gains. You will go much further (and it sounds as if you did so in the Anon games) when you work WITH your allies and actually help them as they help you. Any one-sided alliance should be avoided like the plague!

All this being said, A game played anon is certainly worth playing from time to time for a twist on things. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be the exception and not the norm!

gotta do this right...
1. kaner406 - prefer non-anon, will play anon
2. mfarb
3. YouCan'tHandleTheTruth - prefer non-anon but will play either
4. Darkarus
5. Alpha@Omega
6. Utom
7. Halt
8. bluecthulhu - prefer anonymous
9. Hirnsaege - prefer anon
10. rexgarum - prefer anon
11. krellin - either (prefer non)
12. didigoose - prefer anon
13. DEFIANT
14. Leif_Syverson - prefer non-anon, will play either way.
15. Dr. Recommended -anon
16. Geronimo
17. Trubbis - either, prefer non-anon
18. RUFFHAUS 8 - either (prefer non-anon)
19. GOD
20. bozo - prefer anon
21. DoubleCapitals - anon, but doesn't really care
22. CubanJedi
23. Mapu - anon
24. y2kjbk
25. Skylin- non-anon, but would play anon
26. Sendric - either
27. Drano019 - prefer non-anon
28. rysk - prefer non-anon
29. LoveDove -either
30. Fischfix
31. KICEMEN17 - anon or non-anon
32. Tomahaha (prefer non-anon but either is fine)
33.
34.
35.

again, that is if you will have me

Tom - not to rehash an old game but you are 100% wrong about me spreading messages saying that we should attack you because you designed the game. I just went through my messages with Texas, Cali, Quebec, and Canada and that topic did not come up at all. Not once.

Gents. I have sent invites out to everyone, we still need two more players - but I'm sure that between 33 of us we can recruit 2 more folks to the game. The game will not process of Sundays (GMT) and is a 2-day phase game, so if you are away for any given weekend then there is an extremely low probability that you will miss any phases if you remember to save your orders before leaving. This game is anonymous as the anon crowd was the most adamant in their refusal to play non-anon. Remember to UNBLOCK all the players on the following list: Extensions etc.. need to be negotiated in-game.

Gents let the battle for sealanes begin!

1. kaner406
2. mfarb
3. YouCan'tHandleTheTruth
4. Darkarus
5. Alpha@Omega
6. Utom
7. Halt
8. bluecthulhu
9. Hirnsaege
10. rexgarum
11. krellin
12. didigoose
13. DEFIANT
14. Leif_Syverson
15. Dr. Recommended
16. Geronimo
17. Trubbis
18. RUFFHAUS 8
19. GOD
20. bozo
21. DoubleCapitals
22. CubanJedi
23. Mapu
24. y2kjbk
25. Skylin
26. Sendric
27. Drano019
28. rysk
29. LoveDove
30. Fischfix
31. KICEMEN17
32. ezpickins
33. JacktheGiantSlayer
34.
35.

PM me if you are having problems joining.

Did you get Tomahaha on that list?