ooh group chats would be fascinating

Yeah that's one way of putting it...but it's best to just keep your options open, and deniability at its highest, while maneuvering an ally into a position where you can take advantage of them.

Alliances have no binding impact on the game.

Generally crap player here who did better than Cicero twice and lost once.

I don't know what they would say but it looked to me like the matches in which they entered Cicero had a pretty wide range of skill, although I don't think there was anyone who diplomacy players consider to be at the top of the game. Hard to say as online diplomacy is so fragmented; Cicero was in a very new very niche variant.

Edited to add that I forgot about some of the players who were involved in the playtesting and design side. They're pretty good.

Well done on Cicero - I played against it three times in August and the only odd thing about it was that didn't engage in the post-game discussion.

Question - how do you think Cicero would fare with more time for discussion? I don't tend to play games with turns that are less than 2 days, and blitz only has 5 minute turns. Or is that something you can't easily test now that the active population of blitz players knows about Cicero? I for one will no longer assume I'm playing against a human when I use webdip in the future.