A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by K

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

[chrispedersen]

Perhaps because forum topics should be to discuss ideas, not people.

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.

--------------

That being said, kingmaking happens when the game has already gone on for 20 turns longer than it has to and no one is having fun. Better to have an ally win than spend another month of RL time micromanaging an empire that will never win.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by K

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.

That you think that says more about you than me. Like everyone else I post when I feel like adding something. I'm a fairly prolific poster and you take extreme positions and are very self important, so it doesn't surprise me that I'd have posted in response to you in several threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

I haven't said anything about what kind of player you are. I'm shocked to learn that I'm a bad person. Really. I might go lie down.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.

Really? What does that have to do with me? I haven't said anything about you as a player. You seem to be implying I'm a 'weak' player without having ever played with me though. That's interesting given the indignation earlier in your post.

[Ballbarian]

Originally Posted by Sombre

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Proceed with caution.

[Squirrelloid]

*sings "If it makes you happyyyy, it can't be that baa-aa-aa-aad."*

*Gets booed offstage*

[Squirrelloid]

Crossposting this from the HoF thread, as its the clearest statement to date from WL on what happened in the game which sparked this discussion:

Originally Posted by Wraithlord

I covered all the angles and you didn't stand a chance to win. I am willing to share my turn files with anyone who wants to verify that. I have had no nefarious cabal with any player to win the game, nor have I persuaded, threatened, mind controlled or did in any other way influenced my allies actions. I gave a fair warning before attacking his VPs. Yes, my ally went ahead and helped me of his own volition, so what?- I don't condemn him for this, quite the opposite, had I been in a similar situation: hating nation A enough and wanting to help nation B enough then I'd probably find a way to help . Be it by sending all my gems, or items, or armies or whatever I can to make sure I influence the end result.

Aristander's actions go back to the initial discussion on beneficial, who the agent is for which an action needs to be considered beneficial, and what appropriate play goals are when you determine victory is not within your grasp. Ie, WLs defense of Aristander's actions mirrors my comments regarding the player ought do things beneficial for himself as a player, and thus personal preference in game outcome is a very relevant factor.

This is most important because it means the initial discussion is exactly on target as to why that game ended that way, and provides suitable justification for why such actions can be warranted.

I'm actually dismayed that many people posting here believe that a player's opinion on which nation they feel should win the game is not a valid motivation to act upon. (Obviously such an opinion should be based on the play of a particular game, but in the situation where you're at war with one contender and allied with the other, that's a clear case for an in-game motivation to prefer one winner over another).

I'm also dismayed that people are against the idea of Kingmaking, since its unavoidable in a diplomatic game. Something as simple as agreeing to ally with one nation against another at the right time can be kingmaking.

(Consider a game with nations A,B,C, A>B>C, but B+C>A. C is in a kingmaking position because they could side with either A or B and determine the victor of that conflict and thus that game. According to the logic of many posters here, siding with A against B would be 'unacceptable' since it only makes A's win more certain. But if we add some more depth to the example, and find that A was a staunch ally of C all game while B was an enemy, it seems unreasonable to decide that C is compelled to ally with B to prolong its own not-lost-yet status. And if B+C>A -> B wins, and A+C>B -> A wins, and A>B -> A wins, then C has no choice which is not a kingmaking play, and so is neither permitted to ally nor fail to ally according to the logic which says kingmaking is bad play).

Basically, Kingmaking is an essential element in the play of games where diplomacy *of any degree* is permitted. It occurs in games that only involve trade. It occurs whenever a third party can be persuaded to make one of two choices, and at least one choice materially effects the outcome of the game. The game doesn't even need to allow communication - the history of a player's actions in the game send a message to his opponents and based on those actions another player might favor or disfavor that player for victory, and might take actions which further that occurrence.

The take-home lesson here is making strong allies early in a game leads to a much improved chance of winning the game because you can expect those allies to make kingmaking plays in your favor should you look to be capable of winning and they do not. I fail to see why playing the diplomatic game well is not equally as valid as fighting out a mega war.

[vfb]

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by vfb

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

I think this cuts to the heart of matter. Your assertion completely disregards that the other player may not share your sentiment. Perhaps he is a newb and is content to follow a vet. Perhaps he received so much help during all the game from his ally that he is willing to make all sacrifice for him and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that different players have different personalities and get their kick out of the game in different manner.
I personally would always fight to last drop of blood. I would never bow to another player.
I am aware however that we are not all the same. I think we - the die hard, alpha types need to show more respect and understanding of different personalities.
If we want to eliminate kingmaking as a source of unbalance we either prohibit diplo or prohibit all kingmaking acts is what I think.