Sometimes that happens and sometimes they want to team up with you since you likely a good player.

It's a reasonable maneuver, IMO. Given zero knowledge about other people, and given an equal chance of long term success with the choice of allies, I'd probably beat on the person I visualized as the biggest threat as well. That's going to be the person who has had the most success.

Of course, I'd also probably do a little digging. If Mr. or Mrs. High Point Total has a history of drawing, and the other person has nothing but wins and losses to his or her credit, Mr/Mrs. High Point is probably going to end up being a superior ally...

Get used to it. Won't get better, can get worse. Rather normal though, as Stratagos pointed out.

Consider it a compliment, look at all the attention you get.

Also, just use your diplomacy - if you can get to that level you can get out of it!

It is called the Gunslinger Effect, and it is a part of life in a scoring/ranking system background where people are intent on that ranking system.

Of course given the tendency here towards avoiding your real name these days you could always simply avoid joining new games under your old false name and use a new false name if it matters at all.

Sounds like the expected result of The Peter Principle, but that would make this game work.

Pick on someone your own size. =)

I agree.
I would go after you no problem, better to wipe out the good guys to make it easier for the rest of us to gain points and work our way up...

Then, i'd imagine we'd receive the same treatment?

Hell, if you're going to metagame and scout them or look at their points... well, why NOT pick and choose the allies who tend to draw, are bad at stabbing, or are easily manipulated/gullbible?

Allies that are easily manipulated can be manipulated by anyone. I try not to pin my game hopes on any player that I would deem unreliable, so anyone with more than one "left" or has never finished a game. Players who communicate more (also the better ones) are easier to convince how vital you are to their plans. If you are sending brief messages about move coordination then you don't get that effect. Better players are better allies.

I think reputation has some positive effects as well. Sir. Edi Birsan is a great example of this. You know that he is going to talk to everyone on the board constantly and you know that he has a tendency towards coalition building and stalemate lines. People might fear that he can bring down the map on them if they try to eliminate him (possibly rightly so). He then organises movements against leaders and thus has a natural tendency towards draws, or if he has picked up enough along the way: a win. Thats why he has never lost.

It's simple strategy - play your opponent, not the game. That being said, I think it's a rather primitive example of it - you can guess from my point total that if I'm good at this game, I haven't proved it yet, but even I can think of multiple ways to deal with an implacably bigoted foe - the first one being that you point out to their allies how open their assault against you has left them.

Uh, if you play other 800-1300's there won't be any problem.
Personally I like to play with people with a few thousand points even though I'd probably lose.