Game #110 - First Anonymous Game

[Cipher]

OK, 7 players on board for 110 to date.

I will remove the player listing on turn 0, but no other coding changes, so messages will pass but I believe the structure is to be no messaging. Self policing, honor reliant.

Cipher

[Ry Vor]

OK, 7 players on board for 110 to date.

I will remove the player listing on turn 0, but no other coding changes, so messages will pass but I believe the structure is to be no messaging. Self policing, honor reliant.

Cipher

In that event, there will be no additional signup fee for this experimental game. Straight $8.

I believe we are six in now.

[Jumbie]

So, if I'm reading this correct from the spectator's point of view there's not much for the onlookers. No in-thread discussions during the game and no 'looking back on game 110' thread either since guilty parties won't want to admit they betrayed someone etc.

[paway]

So, if I'm reading this correct from the spectator's point of view there's not much for the onlookers. No in-thread discussions during the game and no 'looking back on game 110' thread either since guilty parties won't want to admit they betrayed someone etc.

No thread discussion while the game is going on, but I see no reason why there wouldn't be a 'looking back' thread in Valhalla. How badly can you betray someone when you aren't allowed to communicate with them? Not badly at all.

And I assume that personas will be publicized at the end of the game with their final scores (unless they drop before game end).

[Ry Vor]

So, if I'm reading this correct from the spectator's point of view there's not much for the onlookers. No in-thread discussions during the game and no 'looking back on game 110' thread either since guilty parties won't want to admit they betrayed someone etc.

Good point. We might even have a separate Valhalla listing for Anonymous or Lone Wolf games if they do become popular.

[DuPont]

OK, 7 players on board for 110 to date.
I will remove the player listing on turn 0, but no other coding changes, so messages will pass but I believe the structure is to be no messaging. Self policing, honor reliant.
Cipher

Does that mean that the 341-349 orders are possible, but the players will agree not to use them? Or does that only apply to the messages at the bottom of the turn?

[Jumbie]

Sancus, the in-game orders permit alliances /truces to be formed, hence backstabbing is possible and misinterpretation of intentions/actions is even more possible and then someone (I can't imagine who...) will come to the forum complaining about another player's lack of honor.

It seems to me that not having a post mortem thread is key to avoiding the conflicts this variant is meant to avoid.

[paway]

Sancus, the in-game orders permit alliances /truces to be formed, hence backstabbing is possible and misinterpretation of intentions/actions is even more possible and then someone (I can't imagine who...) will come to the forum complaining about another player's lack of honor.

It seems to me that not having a post mortem thread is key to avoiding the conflicts this variant is meant to avoid.

Jumbie, you are making this sound more complicated than it needs to be.

There is no reason to score this differently than a regular game of Alamaze. There is no reason to not have a post-mortem thread in Valhalla. If someone doesn't want to be known, he or she can drop before the end of the game. Otherwise, a person can live with the consequences of their actions JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME. There is no difference between this game and a regular individual game with the exception that players are not known and they are not allowed to communicate until game end. Its simple, really. If we opted not to have Valhalla threads for every game where "backstabbing is possible and misinterpretation of intentions/actions is possible", then there would never be another Valhalla thread.

The only real breach of honor that will be possible in this game is going to be if a player cheats and communicates with his fellow players.

[paway]

OK, 7 players on board for 110 to date.
I will remove the player listing on turn 0, but no other coding changes, so messages will pass but I believe the structure is to be no messaging. Self policing, honor reliant.
Cipher

Does that mean that the 341-349 orders are possible, but the players will agree not to use them? Or does that only apply to the messages at the bottom of the turn?

I'm curious about this, as well.

I read a post a few pages ago where Ry Vor said that orders 341-349 should not be allowed to prevent alliances and non-aggression pacts, but it has never been clarified entirely.

The in-game messaging at the bottom of the page is clearly forbidden. Are 341-349 also forbidden?

[Cipher]

I'm with Paway, with no messaging, what's the issue with revealing positions/info post-game?

Expectatations, as I understand them:
1. The only code change is the removal of postion/player listing on turn 0
2. Players are honor-bound to refrain from messaging within or outside of the game
3. Per #1 above, semi annual status points will be anonymous, but game end status points will show player info with placements

I've reviewed the signups and 7 players have sent kingdom preferences, but one reversed - concerned with how long it may take to fill the game.

If you have requested a setup for 110, and are OK with the items here you don't have to do anything. If you are interested in this variant and have not signed up, send your kingdom preferences as a request to signup@alamaze.co