[Stryke11]

Ok Baalz, I'm not sure if you didn't find anything in my post to be "justification" but here in my mind is the justification.

Player A is at war with Player B. Player B wins, and it is obvious Player A is out. Player B is directly responsible for Player A's loss, and removal from the game (soon). Therefore, player A thinks "Gee, I'd still be playing the game and doing well were it not for Player B killing me. Therefore, I will do everything I can to make sure that Player B loses to Player C, since I am done anyway."

You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss. If you don't want these types of tactics being used against you, I suggest you become Player C, the one that doesn't declare war, waits things out, and gets the help from defeated nations. Or, you can be a "just" opponent and be so respected by your foes they choose not to use scorced earth on you.

I guess you see it as why is Player A making it so hard for me to finish him off, while helping Player C, who he doesn't even have a relationship with. The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.