I dislike those kind of games, so I have a solution:
[In game chat:]
Whoever allies with me first, I will fight the enemy to the bitter end (thus winning the game for my ally).
*(note: I'd post a link to the game chat on both of their walls, with about a second in between each post.)
Would this actually constitute as "throwing the game" or "suiciding"?
I see it as honest diplomacy for ending the misery of pointless three-player stalemates.
throwing games was really never meant to mean you cant throw a
It was more about point dumping or repeat offenders. Certainly throwing lots of games would come under gross abuse, but it would be impossible to regulate the throwing of one game, because technically, that is just strategy, and taking away the right to throw a game, or suicide would ruin the game defacto.
The threat that a player might at some point get mad and suicide is real in every game, and one could say is the game itself in many cases.
Throwing an individual game would only really be wrong if it was done for reasons outside of the game, or retribution for another game. But proving that is pretty tough, not to say impossible.
wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead" sekretar:
"i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"http://i.imgur.com/zU8yLiU.gif