[chrispedersen]

A few observations.

1). A player does not have to be capable of winning the game to be capable of throwing it.

1.5 > 1.

So even if a player is third, he is more than capable of throwing a game.

2). The reason we play against real players is for the challenge of it. We hope for a contest of tactics, of wills, of strategems, win or lose.

3. I would say that it is beneficial for the dominions community overall, that players do not 'throw' games - as this leads to the most satisfying games. I would define 'throwing a game' as joining a contest for the purpose of making it inequitable.

On the other side of the matter:

4). Suppose one had been trounced - and gradually losing. Same three player argument. I don't really think it is unrealistic to ally, or throw the game 'against' the player that is defeating you.

Mictlan attacks arco.
Pangaia aids arco - as arco gets close to losing - arco throws all available forts etc to pangaia.

While it is unsatisfying, I see nothing wrong in it. Mictlan saying 'lose the way I chose you to lose' seems illogical.

Concluding: I know this thread arose because of a game. I am not taking sides in the game, I don't know the relevent facts.

I think it is incumbent on every player to attempt to win the game. Once winning is not possible how they choose to lose is up to them. Diplomacy is a huge part of the game. If you are courteous to your opponent he is more likely to be courteous in return. If not - he is more likely to gift his forts or items to other players.

Good sportsmanship suggests that they should endeavor not to spoil the enjoyment of the other players in the game.