Yeah that'd be good, but then you'd find I think groups of players that form alliances all the time and just play for 1st 2nd and 3rd. No?

going for 1st, 2nd and 3rd is always a problem (see my scoring suggestions). The game is a little bit too quick for complex negotiation as well. Private chat might be an ok feature (in conjunction with measures to stop people playing for non first place), but would require slightly longer time outs.

yuck.

That's stupid.

I don't like it. I think all communication between players should be heard by all players at the table.

I prefer to see ad-hoc alliances form in the public chat space. I have had players allied against me, and even knowing about it, there wasn't much I could do.

Playing enough table-top games leads me to suggest that all alliances should be publicly discussed. Although here on kdice, you can't see the look on the aligned-against, which is often precious.

Not a fan of alliances in general, unless temporarily formed and just as quickly forgotten. If there must be alliances, they should be public.

greatest idea ever!!!!

the idea sucks, but has potential, private messages would be preferred