[WraithLord]

Dear friends. The subject of discussion was presented in a clear manner for open and constructive discussion. However it does reveal a very sensitive "nerve" (if you like). Possibly lots of past hard feelings or feeling of being cheated of victory or lost/won unfairly can surface and throw this constructive, welcome discussion into the mud.
I thus implore you to keep it civil and to the point, lets keep those skeletons in the closet and concentrate on improving the future.

Now as to the specifics of a given recent game I saw a lot of inaccuracies here, but since this one is over and done with and following my own above advice I'll do my share to keep this closed. Anyone that is truly interested in hearing the details, seeing turn files plus my explanation on what happened is welcome to contact me and then make up his own opinion. Enough of that, let's tackle the subject at hand in an abstract manner as we should.

I'll present my opinion in the form of what I believe to be mere facts. This is not dogma but a basis for further discussion.

1. In diplomacy games players characters matter. Some players will fight to end and scorch earth and pass all the gem income to attacker's enemy just to take revenge. Other players will always try to avoid a fair fight. Others like to follow a charismatic leader and are very happy to give all they have just to see that leader win.
None of this is wrong. It is all part of diplomacy games and must be accepted. Any artificial prohibitions will lesser the game experience for some class of player characters.

2. Kingmaking is king-making is King making. The act defines itself. It's context or pretexts doesn't alter the act.
I heard a lot of statements like "Yes, I gave these 1k gems to make nation A king but that was ok because of..."
or "That play for making B king is foul b/c ..."
lot's of variation on the theme and in the end the same as a back-stab is just that no matter what the reasons so are King making acts. Your reasons and rational makes sense to you and your friends but you must realize and respect that there maybe and indeed is a different faction that disagrees with you.
So leave the subjective stuff out. Accept that king making is what it is and then you can start to tackle it if you find it disturbing.

3. For the purpose of kingmaking attaching moral score to different acts and making distinctions between them is artificial and self centered. Some players find some king making acts acceptable while others find the very same acts unacceptable. To make a constructive progress one must bundle together all king making acts and either allow or prohibit *all*.

Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue. First, since the statement is subjective and not in consensus. Second, because in some situations gems can contr. more to victory than VPs can. Third, b/c in some respects giving gems/items/gold is *worse* then giving VPs. This is b/c of the game engine. It makes giving gems/items/gold a secret act while giving VPs can be discovered (intel). Also, giving gems/items/gold can't be countered in any means while giving VPs can.

My suggestion is to agree on the term kingmaking, bundle all acts that qualify as such into it and then state clearly at start of game whether or not kingmaking is allowed.

My personal opinion is that prohibiting kingmaking in diplo. games will make the game much less fun b/c it will not allow players to bring their character and preference into the game - what will make the game experience shallower.
I think that diplo and kingmaking prohibition are mutually exclusive.