um...everybody...breathe or something. tensions are running rather high in this thread, this is supposed to be a game and fun. i'm sure this will all look a hell of a lot better after some time has passed and the game's over.
noodle, i agree with a good portion of your stance: second place is not better than third, fourth, etc. i think perhaps you have gone a little too far in the worship of the win though. but hell, even that's okay...just don't expect everyone to have quite the same outlook as you. that's part of the game too. and knowing how to manipulate/negotiate with people with those other outlooks is key to achieving your objectives. you very well could play a game where everyone sees things the way you do, and perhaps you are very successful at that...maybe you're just very good at getting people with similar goals to you to do what you want them to. well, that guy who thinks a draw is his best option? he can be negotiated with too. you just have to go about it a different way. let him think he's gaining a position that can force a draw. tell him you'll consider a draw if he moves against x player, whatever. different people call for different tactics. frankly, i think the various outlooks people bring to the game make it more interesting, as each game is a completely different, unpredictable playing field. your ability to analyze that playing field and get inside the heads of your fellow players is key to using the right tricks with the right folks and paving your way to the solo you crave.
the way i see it, points farmers or whatever you want to call them, have to make a cost-benefit analysis: join a wta game and hope they can survive to force a draw or, lucky day, win to get points vs. join a pps game and by simple virtue of surviving get points. it's a no brainer, the majority will go for pps.
in this game you're pointing to, if i have it all right, you say that france has a decent chance at a solo but is going for a draw, italy isn't moving against france and is going for a draw, and you have the choice to go out fighting or take the draw. here's my take: italy looked at the board and said, "crap, i don't see a way i can win this. well, my best alternative is to make sure no one else wins and fight for a draw. france wants to offer the draw, turkey's fighting it. okay, well i'll fight turkey and once france and i are left standing, i'll either attempt a stab if i think i have a better position then, or scramble for that draw." france looks at the board and says, "hmmm...i *might* be able to outright win here, but i'm not so sure, as i'm a more cautious player. if i go for the solo, turkey and italy will gang up on me and turkey will clearly come out the winner and walk away with the game. i can't let someone other than me win and i'm just not sure of my chances, so i'm gonna offer the draw and make sure no one beats me. if turkey doesn't want to take the draw, italy and i will take him down and hell, if then the board looks right i can turn around and stab him blind for my solo. if not, he'll just be glad he doesn't lose to me and i can get him to accept a draw before he realizes he might have a shot at beating me and i can assure my non-defeat."
how i'd look at the board at this point is i'd probably say one of two things, "can i force a win outright anyway? can i leverage one of them against the other? yes to either of those? then damn it all to hell i'm going for my solo!" or, as seems the case here, "hrmmm...i can't beat these guys or turn one from the other, i'm destined for defeat. france could really walk away with the game though, why's he being silly and offering a draw? well, he's the sucker, i'm going to take him up on it and i will not allow anyone else but me to take the victory!"
victory or death seems a limited view. diplomacy offers you the option to prevent your opponent from winning. why not sieze it?
just my 2 cents.