Outside of Valis...I usually only see it with a 3 or less center power trying to stay alive and relevant.

i almost get it if you think you can inevitably be part of the draw, but to me a lose and survive are one and the same

Sounds like you're waiting until critical points in a game where a stab will result in you soloing or someone else soloing.

If you stab early enough and effectively enough, it's not generally an issue to cause someone else to solo.

Any examples?

Tru, i think you misunderstand.....lets say were allies and i stab you mid game, and all but make you irrelevant, then you go to the next highest power and offer to help him solo out of spite towards the other

"you go to the next highest power and offer to help him solo out of spite towards the other"
Under certain circumstances (i.e. the stabbeur fou that just stabbed you is now on his way to a solo), I think you SHOULD make that offer. And you should maintain it only as long as it takes to achieve some kind of parity between your new ally and your old one. Once that happens, if you have any life left, you should either renegotiate the deal or else just renege on it and buddy up to your old pal with the warning that you WILL throw the game if he tries anything funny again.

Of course, after a couple rounds of this, both sides will get tired of you and collude to eliminate you just to get rid of your annoyance, but at least you'll have fun in the meantime. There's an outside chance that you might be able to convince them both to let you stay in the draw -- less outside if you're REALLY good at producing effective press or if you're in a gunboat game. And with a name like mine, my hope springs eternal that this will happen. It's worth a shot, at least.

^I recognize that this probably isn't what you were complaining about, ssorenn. I've been tempted to turn completely against someone simply out of spite (and I may even have done it once or twice), but my self-preservation instincts usually kick in before I fully do so.

Certain other players leave self-preservation for RL only, and there really isn't much you can do about that. It's a legitimate choice on their part.

gameID=163481
It didn't make much of a difference, but once I used my position as a possible kingmaker as a threat in a public chat game. I was Italy, and the goal was to stop the Russian solo, with the threat being that if France tried to eliminate me first I would let Russia win. Because my threats only work when I stick to them, I figured I might as well help Russia win so that France would learn his lesson (and next time take these threats seriously, although it might not directly affect me since we might not play each other again, but the to get across the point and hopefully spread the word that players are willing to use this as a tactic. Though it didn't make much of a difference because, to be honest, it was a horrible game and Turkey and France had already let Russia win by not being hard enough on him.

Shit gameID=163316 ignore my previous gameID
And for those curious I was helping Russia win by publicly announcing then playing Apu-Ion to cut French support to Greece and let Russia in if he wanted it. This itself was partly a threat, because I told France I would cut his support unless he offered me something, but he never responded so I figured I should keep my word even though it didn't directly help me.

there are a lot of reasons to use this tactic in press... but its another to follow through with it. I will threaten to help someone solo to stop the current leader and make him back off, because he cant take the chance that im serious....its completely another thing to follow through with it....its disingenuous and makes a poor sport

ssoren, you deftly answered your own question, I think. Spite is the identified reason and motive. But "why" questions are usually rhetorical in nature, I suppose.

So, if spite is the motivation to help another player solo, thus throwing the game, is it (spite) inherent to Diplomacy as a game, or is it outside the bounds of good sportsmanship?

If only for the sake of argument, I think it would be wrong to throw it out without proper examination. So, Diplomacy is a game about domination through maneuver within strict rules of movement, like chess. And it is also a game of communication and relationship, hence the name of the game. As we all know, the social side of the game, involve players who, intentionally or not, draw out good and bad emotions in their fellow players through their actions in the game. When intentional, this is used to manipulate the actions of other players. Additionally, we find there are emotional reactions that are not intended or wished for and cause another player to act against one's interests, as when you former ally helps your opponent solo. I suppose a good player would anticipate that is one possible result of a stab. And if you know this about your opponent, it is simply another factor to weigh in your decisions.

Just a thought.

You can't make a threat effective unless you're willing to go through it. Otherwise, people will call you on your b.s.

remember, your moves are more telling than your press. If you say "back off or I throw the game" but you never make a move that could throw the game, no one will believe you're serious.

right, and in gunboat, there is no threat accept through action

But spite while directed towards one, effects all others is the game

So hence I feel it is poor sportsmanship

The occasional throw is important for the same reason that the occasional 2-Way is important. Claiming one's intention to do either holds little weight unless such things actually happen from time to time.

Ok, let's say I buy that argument Tas, if I break it down and just use my specific example of Valis, he once referred to himself as "the solo maker". He was not referring to his stats. How do you feel about that?

Haha.. @Tas, says the man who got thrown a game in the most frustrating game I ever played. You deserved the win though man, although it should have been a draw.
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=566887
Tru was also in there. So much drama in that game, especially from me :p

*wait wrong paste :)
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=73400#gamePanel

Lol, don't drag me into that mess. I was eliminated early and had nothing to do with the solo. That's on you survivors :)

Plus, that was a pretty crappy game for me. I think I was trying to force a French alliance and should have realized that once 3 German armies hit the map that I had a German ally sewn up.

It's probably a good thing I don't really remember that game...

Could be to win points in a PPSC game or to end a losing game more quickly as those can become a chore to continue. Also improves RR in settings where motivation might discourage a player from continuing to play.

@ssorenn: It means people will take him seriously when he threatens to throw a game! I for one would want him on my side. And if he can be negotiated with, as opposed to say picking targets at random, I think I have a decent chance of winning him over.

@Mrcs: Oh hey, I remember that game! It was my first solo.

ssorrenn, you say it's not a good thing to follow through with threats, but how else do you expect them to be taken seriously?

If you're threatening to throw a game, then you should be willing to actually do so, otherwise it's a hollow threat.

If it's perfectly clear you won't be included in a draw, then it doesn't harm to help somebody else to win. Sometimes it's better to be one of six losers, than, for instance, one of three.

@Tas: it's good to know my death went for something positive.

. . . then there is the PPSC versus WTA discussion, but I won't bring that up here because it was settled long ago and no one wants a flame thread . . .

"but its another to follow through with it."

People don't call your bluff as often when they know it's not actually a bluff.

Diplomacy is a social game.

Social dynamics are what make this game interesting and fun, so things like irrational spite and hatred are part of the game, for better or worse.

Well I guess we can all agree to disagree I find it childish. Call it what you will. I just was interested in hearing what people thought. None of this has swayed my opinion.

Now to be fair, I know there are more people who do this than Valis, he just happened to be the best example from personal experience that I had

Also survival stats are probably a part of the picture. Surviving is better than being defeated, eh?

Not even a little ^^

I think this video is interesting to highlight this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBcpuBRUdNs&t=61m30s

Throwing a game can be very funny. I am in a PPSC game where the two biggest powers have clearly decided on 17 all, supporting each other at a stage in the game where it is clearly detrimental to their own position. Now there's only me left and I don't really see why I should waste my time helping these two divi up the points, so I have publicly announced I am throwing the game in favour of one of them. It's really funny watching the power I have selected to win moving his units to ludicrous locations in order not to take the SCs I'm giving him. And watching the other guy get increasingly miffed as I defend my SCs against him. It makes it worth the valuable time I'm expending helping these two bozos improve their ratings. The guy who is not getting the benefit is now threatening to report me to the mods.

I did it once early on - gameID=146412
I came in as England, taking over a CD in time for the Spring '04 retreat. I messaged Russia right off, and received a brief but very unpleasant response, so I muted him and spent the rest of the game attacking him. It was stupid because I got emotionally caught-up in it. France solo'd in a walk.

Throwing a solo is all fun and games until someone gets hit in the eye.

I have never thrown a game, but I have threatened to throw a game several times. The only reasons those threats ever have a chance at working is because others have gone through with it, and I am prepared to go through with it if need be. To rule yourself out of ever throwing a game is to lose a useful tool from your armoury, and to criticise someone for doing what you are willing to do is hypocritical. I have no wish to do either.

It's fairly straight forward.

Play to win.
If you can't win, draw.
If you can't draw, play to fuck over the guy who's stopping you.

@ssoren,

I know you're a dear and you probably mean well, but there's at least one more level of play here beyond the level of your apparent reasoning.

For example, if I was in a game playing alongside you, I want to be honest that I'd probably hand the solo to someone at random (not you) unless I thought I could solo against you. Mostly just because.

@ Guy who seriously chose a smiley-face as his log-on name -

And it's pretty much anything except straight-forward.

Al is still a shithead.

But ssorenn, you are defeated 23% of the time. You loose nearly one quarter of the time that you play? How?

A glance at your recent games include a defeat...at gunboat. How do you manage to loose at gunboat?

A draw should be an easy sell to people once a solo rears it's ugly head. You have trouble selling a draw to people who otherwise might very well be vanquished?

And you don't attribute this to personal failings?