I'd argue that Italy just wasn't willing to listen, he only responded to about 1 in 5 communication attempts throughout the whole game. I think I still prefer WTA.

I think he explained his reasoning in game and whilst I disagree with his reasoning we should respect it, particularly as he seems to be a new player. WTA can through up such circumstances and we have to deal with them - in this case we didn't.

Italy wasn't very communicative with me either at first - I think he messaged me maybe twice all game before he decided to throw; that is unusual from this player. He's usually pretty chatty.

Throwing a game is a powerful and valid instrument although in this case, it wasn't executed correctly since Italy was irreplaceable for the stalemate and therefore wasn't in danger of mortal stab. The remaining Eastern powers probably pissed Italy off so much he refused to cooperate - being pissed off is also a valid reason to throw a game. Personally, I think that even if Italy held the line, there would still be a danger from Austria down the line if Russia and Turkey waved their guns too close to it but that's irrelevant. I agree with Maniac, others failed to judge Italy correctly and approached it the same as your usual player. It happens that your neighbour is uncommunicative but one must overcome it and not hope he'll act the way one wants in the end. Italy apparently thought he would be eliminated from the draw in the end and instead of slow death, he chose a pompous end. I think that was a grave misjudgment but I respect that decision.

I shouldn't speak much, because my own poor play was ultimately responsible for the end of the game, but I will say that I found Italy a mystifying player who spoke only in riddles toward the end of the game and refused to explain himself at all -- this although we had never had anything but a friendly relationship. I think this nullifies much that the rest of you are saying -- I agree that throwing a game is a powerful tool, but only if it's combined with making a (specific) statement in time for something to be done about it. Just shutting up and throwing the game to spite people who never did you any harm without letting them have a chance at reasoning you out of it is just upsetting play.

So -- to state the obvious -- is NMRing, of course, and certainly less defensible.

Anyway, though, as you all state, he's a new player, so perhaps it was just misjudgment and he won't do it again.

I've argued this before, and I'll say it again: the format of the game (WTA v. PPSC) is not the best predictor of a player's behavior. Any decent player in either format will probably agree that a win > a draw > a survive > a defeat > a resign.

Granted, there are a few players who might, for example, decide that they would rather have an 8 center "survive", than work for a 4 center "draw." - and PPSC might be said to incentivize that kind of decision. But the people who would make that kind of decision are generally poor players anyway - the kind who don't understand that, in the spirit of this game, even the most meager "draw" (with only one center remaining) is a better achievement than any "survive" (even with 17 centers).

As Italy shows us in this example, people will make the decision to help another player solo for any number of reasons - including sending a message to others about their perceived poor play. I find it disingenuous to claim that the PPSC vs. WTA distinction is "responsible" for a player throwing the game to a solo-er.

semck, if he only stopped talking at the end, it was an insurmountable obstacle and good luck for YJ ;) If a player is silent all the time, it is paramount to take him out ASAP - unpredictability is bad, especially in players in crucial positions. Failing to do so opens door for troubles. On the other hand, if someone stops talking at a crucial moment without prior warning and cannot be convinced to anything, that's just bad luck and a very upsetting situation. Losing is one thing, losing without an ability to do anything is much worse :)

"Granted, there are a few players who might, for example, decide that they would rather have an 8 center "survive", than work for a 4 center "draw." - and PPSC might be said to incentivize that kind of decision. But the people who would make that kind of decision are generally poor players anyway."

I strongly disagree with this. Everybody has different goals, but if you are a player who plays to maximize his GR (and I'm not saying everybody SHOULD), then you are a fool to take a draw over a higher point gain 2nd place.

"I find it disingenuous to claim that the PPSC vs. WTA distinction is "responsible" for a player throwing the game to a solo-er."

I agree. From a guy who was there, PPSC mentality did not factor into this. Italy explains himself adequately in his global end-of-game message.