players begging for (and being given points)

Quite a few times I have been knocked out in third spot but with more points than the guy in second. Then watching the rest of the game I see in the chat the player in second begging the overwhelming leader to let him have a couple of points so he can overtake me.

    This has happened a few times, in the last one the player winning let the other guy have a rook just so he could take second, this has to amount to blatent cheating.

From now on I am disabling chat on every single game im involved in on move One. There is too much of this behavior occuring

I agree.this begging is pathetic. if you have no enough points to be 2nd,then just resign.

I'm not giving any points to anyone and If someone wants points in a game with me then they had better find a way to take them Like a "REAL" Man or Woman and not like some _______ (fill in the blank with your favorite derogatory

term)

Aslong as the rating range thing wont wotkproperly, it is really pointless toplay ffa.   Weakplayers are too stupid to play with.  It's not a real game

I have done that a couple of times, I had given some points to another player, when some players team up against me, and somehow they run out of time figuring out how to attack me and end up in the short end of the stick, then my revenge is sweet, sorry but it is pointless to get mad or use profane language against a player, when the object of the game after all, is just to have fun,  there is no reason to get furious about it.

I think this is bad, but I don't see how this would benefit the player in first, so I'm a little surprised this would even happen.

It seems to happen a lot, normallt when the first player is completely won. Player being crushed snivels that he needs a few points to overtake second. Why does thhe winner help him?

1) The guy being crushed probably helped the winner by helping take out the one who went out in third.

2)  The winner will be in a good mood because won the game and will not care if he hangs a rook to keep the crushed one happy.

Why he should not do it

1) it is unfair on the other Two that were knocked out

2) It is manipulating the result

3) He would not like it if someone did it to him

This issue has come up before and no-one's come up with a viable solution to date (can't find the link unfortunately). I don't think your reasons are adequate to create a standard of ethics for everyone to follow.

1) isn't really a proper reason, it's just a statement with no justification. That doesn't mean there aren't proper reasons, just that 1) is not in itself a reason.

3) is a weak reason. Sure, it's true, but isn't it also true that if the winner was the player who was coming third but still not eliminated, he would be sad if the winning player didn't give him 20 points by claiming the win? By making one player happy, you make the other sad.

2) is true but I don't see how the winner can avoid manipulating the result. They are forced to make a choice between claiming a win and playing for checkmate, which determines the placings of two of the remaining players.

It's not even necessary for the winner to give the live player a rook; all they need to do is claim the win.

Perhaps if the person who is in the lead but there is still enough material left for someone to beat them and they resign to avoid that situation they should take a hit on their rating.
Hitting the "claim win" should not end the game if there are still 2 other players playing. Especially if the person that would get third has an real chance of taking second.
It there isn't enough material left (after player 1 "claims win") for them to get second the maybe the "claim win" button shouldn't be available.
does that make sense?
I'm sure that somewhere down the line things will be refined enough so that the game becomes even more fun that it is now. Even with some of the bugs it is still a great game.

I don't think you can claim a win with more than two other players remaining.

There's no good alternative.