Debate Open: Is it legal to throw a game I'm going to lose?

[Nardbuster]

I find myself in a situation. Where I have a large incampment. If you will accect that. At one time I was leading the game. Albeit, another play who was losing. Decided to to go all out and loosen my grip on the game. The game in NO CARDS. I have been attacked by all players at this point.
As I mentioned I now have an formatible incampament. I can upset the balance either way. The chances of willing are slim..
Should I flip a coin to decide which party I will assist.
DO you ahve any ideas?

did you even bother to read this thread?

AS it turned out, I was attacked. Now, the attacker is weaken... I did not need to flip a coin.. GOOSEN!!

[magpies]

i beleive you should always play as if your still a chance i have given up hope of winning b4 but fought it out only 2 b back in it a few shots l8r with a card set or others ignoring you cause your no threat.also ive seen guys throw it in then hand the game 2 someone who didnt deserve it by auto attacking across the board on rebels then someone who would never have got his cards get them. [/b]

[Distant Relative]

If it's perfectly legal but just unethical to have any kind of publicly stated alliance. Then the most unethical players will automatically float to the top of the scoreboard. It's just a matter of time before 2 players will join 3-player games and as a rule make an open alliance between them in round 1. And then take turns winning the game. Of course they'll have a huge list of negative feedback, probably making them proud in a Krusher kind of way. But one of them will be a "tainted" Conqueror for sure.
And ignore lists are no means of stopping them, since there will always be newbies who don't know about their tactics.

So in my opinion, although it isn't illegal right now, it should be.
And if this causes trouble detecting alliances in the future, then maybe we need a second, cleaner scoreboard. A scoreboard where for instance, points can only be collected the first time you play with or against someone. Every next game you play the same person won't yield or loose you any points. So at least you won't be able to cheat with your buddies.
I realize the idea needs probably a lot of fine tuning. But it's a new approach, or isn't it?

[krusher]

If it's perfectly legal but just unethical to have any kind of publicly stated alliance. Then the most unethical players will automatically float to the top of the scoreboard. It's just a matter of time before 2 players will join 3-player games and as a rule make an open alliance between them in round 1. And then take turns winning the game. Of course they'll have a huge list of negative feedback, probably making them proud in a Krusher kind of way. But one of them will be a "tainted" Conqueror for sure.
And ignore lists are no means of stopping them, since there will always be newbies who don't know about their tactics.

So in my opinion, although it isn't illegal right now, it should be.
And if this causes trouble detecting alliances in the future, then maybe we need a second, cleaner scoreboard. A scoreboard where for instance, points can only be collected the first time you play with or against someone. Every next game you play the same person won't yield or loose you any points. So at least you won't be able to cheat with your buddies.
I realize the idea needs probably a lot of fine tuning. But it's a new approach, or isn't it?

you're first post and you already think you can diss me lol?

[Yahoo oo]

im pretty sure i've heard peolpe say it is illgal to throw a game and i know i cant spell illgal

[pimphawks70]

People who throw games will 9 times out of 10 get a negative feedback!

[Shooter_Jay]

Don't be such a quitter. Who knows, another player might see the strongest and go at him hard. It only takes you a second to fortify each round, and I've had some crazy comeback wins. The main reason to play it out is play to win, otherwise, you are wrongfully changing the outcome of the game, taking a win away from the player that should have gotten it. Be a man and take the turns you agreed to when you started the game.

[Adino]

I have been in a game in which i haven’t attacked in over a month. This game has taken up one of my 4 game slots for all that time and I have faced attacks almost every round. I couldn’t stomach a suicide. The reason is because I don’t much care about points, I care about getting crazy awesome wins. If I could drop 1000 points and get more awesome games I gladly would, for that reason I prefer to play the higher ranked people to the chefs despite the fact that overall I get way more points fighting them. It’s the thrill of the game not the winning that I am in for.

[Prankcall]

this is something I thought I would like to comment on..Don't ever throw or intentionally lose to another player...Points are to be won not lost...What does it matter who u lose to in all honesty..Points can always be won back,just as they can be lost.The only thing this accomplishes is pissing the other players off..I have been in games for 2+ hrs..for in the end some1 to suicide into me..That kinda shit pisses me off...I mean if u dont play to win the game surely dont play to lose it eh..Another thing that bothers me is players missing turns to think they are getting an edge..They need to quit the carry over army bonus..Blah blah a good player can counter this by planning in advance is so full of shit..how bout u guys that make the rules get rid of the army carry over..To stop all the damn losers from doing this shit..Those 2 mentioned things are a sure way to land u on ignore..Missing turns and handing some1 the game intentionally/losing intentionally..It's a bit unfair to give some1 the game becuz u want to save what 10 points try not being so petty

[eroyce]

The game that I had brought up for this discussion is long gone (for those interested in how everything turned out, I lost to the higher ranked player, although not intentionally), and I am actually quite surprised at how long people have continued to comment on this.

I just wanted to make a comment on what I have read here as suggestions to my debate:

1. Based on only 2/3 of people voting to not throw the game to a higher ranked player, clearly this is either not a conclusive ethical decision with one right answer, or we have 1/3 of the people in this who are unethical.

2. I think the best point made was this one made by Prankcall: "Points are to be won, not lost". That really is the entire point (no pun intended) of the game, to earn points. Sure it may be the most strategic thing to conserve points by losing to a higher ranked player, but then your score is not reflecting how good you are at winning, but instead how good you are at losing. Maybe that is or isn't a good thing (see point one).

3. Lastly, it is nice to see so many people out there defending honor and ethics. It may be a stupid argument, and in fact the call of ethics may simply be the crying of the losers, but it is nice to hear and nice to know that at least 2/3 of the people here consider "what is right" in the actions that they take (I'm not saying the other 1/3 of people are unethical, simply that this wasn't their argument).

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Please feel free to carry on into the future, and I hope to see you all on the battlefield.