idk about whether or not it's ethical.....

but i don't see anything wrong with it.

I don't think you'll find any hard rules on this sort of thing, but I'm sure there's a wide range of opinions..

Personally, I think it's exactly this situation that makes the PPSC system superior to traditional WTA play.. In both types of games you can find yourself in an unwinnable position, but only in WTA are you really encouraged to kamikaze/play out of spite in these situations. The much more realistic (politically/historically speaking) option is to do your best to save your crumbling nation rather than sacrificing yourself to see another benefit.

its absolutely stupid. did we ever see england "donating" itself to U.S. in world war 2?

it's absolutely unethical!

if you were playing a game where you are winning, how would you feel if you lost because someone else "donated" their supplies.

What "ethics"? If you want to do it, do it. It's spiteful, it's stupid, it probably won't accomplish what you want it to and it' counter to the spirit of the game, but you can do whatever the hell you want with your own centers.

amen to that

enough with all this ethics morals crap, it's all a guise for profiteering anyway

http://s9.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=156989

It isn't remotely unethical. In many versions of the rules even *cheating* is allowed in some F2F games as long as everybody agrees. (We tried that once back in the day -- but it was generally too chaotic; everybody wanted to submit false move orders for everyone else, etc.)

This game doesn't lend itself to real-world comparisons, but if you're going to try to analyze it with comments like idealist's (England "donating" itself), I suppose you have to ask whether the game represents total "ownership" or merely military control.

One power ceding military control to another power is hardly uncommon. After WWII, the US was the sole military presence in Iceland for half a century. Right now we're conducting major operations from vast bases in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Even conquering a territory in the real world isn't ownership. After all, Germany had full military control of France, Poland, etc. ... which fell apart as soon as the war ended. They never "owned" anything despite having taken it in a fashion which would probably satisfy idealist's sense of game ethics. (Not to pick on idealist specifically, I'm sure others agree with him.)

I think willfully ceding control to allies is neither unethical nor unrealistic.

As long as you are not multi-accounting it is perfectly ok to voluntarily let another power take your CDs.

it's totaly fine, as long as you can trust your ally.

done that before.

he gave me my centers back without any complaint, and we ended in a kickass unstoppable 2-way draw.
then we high-fived, and the board exploded with awesome.

well, kind off

my point is, if you are allied to someone, and you are sure he won't stab you, it is okay to lend him a center for an extra build, especially if he urgently needs it, while you don't.

there are more ways of helping an ally other than support move and support hold

I agree the situation you are describing is fine, Akroma. It's not quite what I am talking about though. I am refering to the situation where you have given up and then donate your SCs.
Judging by this thread it would seem plenty of people think its okay. That's fine by me. I just wanted to see what the vibe was.
My own personal opinion is that each player should try to win, if not win then draw, if not draw then survive. But each to their own I guess.

Spyman - I agree with your order of outcomes. But, as the game in question is still in progress, I won't say anything else for now

Sure Pete. I didn't mean to breach any game confidentiality.
Everything is cool.

@spyman, there is one final to your win - draw - survive scenario. If not survive, influence the outcome as you would see fit. That is what usually happens when one gives their SCs to an ally. You know you are about to die, so give them to the ally who might be able to use them to greater effect.

I ran into this situation on a variant map (other website) and found that by donating a few centers to the eventual winner I spared 8-10 other centers that would have gone to the guy who stabbed me...so at least I prevented him from winning! I gave my centers not to an ally but to a neutral party who I was actually preparing to attack before I was stabbed, and scored some points. My welfare recipient was stalemated on other fronts and would have had to attack me to win anyway, so I got to be a kingmaker at least I survived to lick his boots instead of being crushed underneath them.

your asking about whether or not an action in diplomacy is ethical? if your being serious, you havent played long enough...

@iMurk789 "... if you're being serious..."

Of course I am being serious. And of course there are ethical considerations in Diplomacy. Do you metagame? I certainly hope not, and if you don't I would suggest that you don't because of "ethical considerations".
I think this is a fair question. I also so think that both sides of the debate have presented a reasonable case. My status on this question is undecided.

It is fine, it makes sense to do so much of the time, especially in WTA and if your ally is willing to let you survive instead of destroying you completely. Its all about maximizing your position.

I agree Hamilton. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I am talking about when you decide you want out of the game altogether.

Metagaming isn't a Diplomacy problem, it's a side-effect of playing on a site like this.

Metagaming is not uniquely a diplomacy problem, it affects other games too (such as Risk for example). But it is still something that affects diplomacy, and thus is subject to ethical considerations.
With regards to my original question, I think I like the way Draugnar puts it: "here is one final to your win - draw - survive scenario. If not survive, influence the outcome as you would see fit." I think that is reasonable.