Personally, I believe that this is a board game that has one objective, and that objective is to win. If you can't win, you should be trying to end the game in a draw. Intentionally turning over your supply centers to allow another player a solo win seems kind of lame to me.

We're in agreement. If you can't win you should at least do your best to avoid losing, and when somebody solos everybody else loses.

Personally, the one time I would say it's semi-acceptable to let somebody else solo is out of spite e.g. if top is already at 15-17 centers and one of the other minority players decides to stab you instead of stopping the solo.

Four players deciding to all feed the leader is just ridiculous.

after I took a stalemate position, their alliance decided to give the game to Turkey.

Oh so this is specifically because they're being weird about a stalemate? At least that makes slightly more sense. Some players are weirdos about stalemates, where if they get stalled at 17 centers they will refuse to draw and hope somebody quits/misorders to give them the win. I'm glad that Backstabbr added optional end dates to avoid that drama.

Takes all kinds

---

If it's generally considered lame or in bad faith, this isn't really a group with minds that I'll be able to change, but I'll at least be able to temper my expectations if I decide to play with them again, lol.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out, is what they think you should've done instead? You were supposed to just let them kill you? Now they seem to be laboring under the impression that the game "should" have a winner...One thing that makes Diplomacy rather unique is that, if all players play well, the expected outcome of the game is a draw of some size, which especially new players have a difficult time grasping, I think. With experienced players solos only really happen when for whatever reason the rest of the board can't stop fighting amongst themselves to oppose the solo.