nvanputten wrote:1) intentionally throwing a game is explicitly forbidden by the CC Rules listed above. Because Ponez sacrificed his own troops in a way that gave absolutely no conceivable benefit to himself but serves the sole purpose of giving the game to one particular player, this constitutes "throwing [the] game". That should settle the matter on face, but if not, I would argue additionally that...
This simply not what is meant by throwing a game. Game throwing occurs when you intentionally lose a game. Since Ponez did not intentionally lose a game, but (according to you) changed the course of a game he had already lost, he is not in violation of the rule preventing game throwing. It's just incorrect by definition, and the C&A team has over the years consistently agreed that moves like this don't constitute throwing the game.
2) The rules against "Farming," Secret Diplomacy, and Multiple Accounts are designed to prevent one player from intentionally acting on the behalf of any other player. Because Ponez acted not in his own interests but instead in the interests of another player (Lokisgal), Ponez was in violation of these rules as well. Because this act was one-sided, Lokisgal did nothing improper (and in fact condemned the action) and the violation rests solely with Ponez.
It could hardly be said to be one-sided. As has been pointed out in this thread, Ponez benefited by his move; he now loses fewer points than he would have, if either you or the other player had won. So there was a clear motivation for him to do what he did.
3) In defense of the Rules. I believe that the rules against throwing games or illegally coordinating undermines the basic principle of the game. The game works only when all players act in their own interest to win. Point are an added way of tracking player's skill to make more competitive games between like-skilled players possible. The goal is to win, and every player should try to do so. If the odds are 0%, then that player should allow the other players to attempt to win on their own merits. In any game - not just risk-style games - the fun of everyone participating is ruined if one player intentionally violates this principle.
Ok, so the argument comes down to this. You think that if a player absolutely cannot win a game, they should just let the game play out. I disagree for the direct reason that acting in your own best interests includes losing as few points as possible. Your argumentation fails because you suggest that we should act in our own best interest to win a game, but stop acting in our own best interest when winning the game is no longer possible. There is no good reason to uphold this standard, because most of the reason you want to win the game in the first place is to be recognized with the points you earn. The fact that the game may be less fun when people do things like this is why it is rightly considered to be "bad form," but it cannot be a reason why it should be precluded by the rules of the game.
One thing that occurs to me is that while it is obviously really
bad form to do something like this in a Conquer Cup game, one might also argue that there is a larger problem here. lokisgal does indeed stand to benefit a lot in real life because of Ponez's decision, and this highlights a problem of what might happen when you have friends playing each other in Conquer Cup games. There may not be any secret diplomacy involved, but if two people are on good terms with each other, then one person might be tempted to sabotage the other players in this situation, simply because of this friendship. I don't know if there's any way to prevent something like this from happening, but it's something to consider. Seeing as lokisgal said he would foe Ponez because of that move, I doubt it happened here however