Scooter: Yeah, right. Had I known I was playing a game with someone that doesn't care if they win or not, I would not have played with you in it. This is true for me in two handed games as it is in multi-player games. As I say, "The object of a game is to win, but the reason to play a game is to have fun." If your idea of having fun is to ruin a game for other people, then you've certainly had your fun here. Bidding 1 made sure you'd lose, no matter what anybody else bid. If you didn't want to play in that particular Pond any more, you should've just kept quiet and bid your 1. Skewing the results as you've done gives those guys with nothing to lose a chance at getting back in a game one of them was losing badly in. Had you bid 10 as Hrqls suggested or 117 as I did, then it would've served them right for taking the chance. But one of them was going to profit by doing it in any case. Perhaps the rest of us in the Pond should have all bid 23. I think the next time someone makes an announcement of this nature in a Pond that I'm playing in, I will write a few players and see what they want to do about it. One of us could bid 2 and the rest of us 3. That should eliminate the problem. And if you change your mind and bid high, only one of the rest us will drop out and the others will just lose 3 points.

Just a game. Yeah, that's all it is. Any time I hear someone say that, I hope I'm not playing a game with them and feel sorry for the person that is playing them. If I win the game it doesn't matter or if I lose the game it doesn't matter against a person with this attitude. So what's the point in playing the game in the first place? Of course it's just a game, so what is meant when this is said? You played the game to lose, I don't like playing with losers. I want to play games with winners. Whether or not I win the game is besides the point. If I wanted to lose, I can certainly do it without causing the grief you have. In a two player game, you can resign or move to lose and it's over. In this multi-player game it's just that easy to lose also, but how you lose directly affects the remaining players. What do you think the long running discussion about resigning in "Run around the Pond" has been about? Simple, fairness to the remaining players. Lots of ideas have been proposed to allow someone to resign without affecting the game or to minimize the affect of their resigning. Had you really wanted to quit, you could have done something of that nature, but no, you did what you did and then you bid 1. You acted unilaterally without concern for the remaining players and then you wonder why people aren't happy? Saying sorry to me is all well and good, but I'm not the only one affected by how you handled this including the two players that bid 2 and 10. Whether or not they communicated with each other or with you about your plan is a moot point, but it will leave a taint on them that won't be easily washed off and forgotten. Your writing now in light of how things went down smacks of making the present fit the past. One thing that is good about the whole affair, you're out of the game now, loser. Considering how high your win percentage is in the many games that you play here, I'm really having a tough time believing that you'd purposely play a game to lose. Something just isn't adding up, but in fairness and to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just say to myself that you made a mistake and didn't consider the ramifications of such a simple act and I won't go as a far as some here that have openly accused you of cheating or throwing the game. It may or may not be a conspiracy, but it has all the markings of one and this is why a few of us have gotten upset about it.