A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[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.

[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.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Micah

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

What I don't get is why you would include revenge as acceptable reason.
The only thing that you are going to get in that game is some emotional gratification, but then why not just be plain and say if it makes you happy ...?
Otherwise I can agree.

[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.

[Executor]

Ahh, my eyes hurt from all this reading. If only I spent all this time reading the thread in studding...

Scorched earth:
Do not like either, but there are certain situation when I feel it should be done. For examle a gangbang, I refuse to give my lands to the nations that who took then so undeservingly. Armageddon goes in this category.

Gem/item gifting:
Can't say really, I usually use up all my gems defending. I support the idea of the nation you conquered giving you gems and items in the name of RP, looting.
And I also sometimes send my gems/items to my allies if they proven themselves a good ally.
But I do not support gifting on a friend bases, or another game return favor.

Alliances:
I support alliance until there are 8,4 or whatever nations left, although I prefer until we're the only once left.
I see nothing wrong with this. But the above described isn't really even an alliance, it's a pre-set longterm NAP.
An alliance defines supporting your ally nation, a mutual defense treaty and such. You attack my ally I'll attack you etc.

I don't approve of pre set alliance before the game ever starts.

Gankfests:
I hate those. And I dislike the people who play like this, and defend themselves in the name of "good strategy". No, good strategy is when you outsmart you opponent not outnumber him to impossible odds.
To me there is no honor in ganging up on a equal-strength nation.
And I dislike ganging in any form, although clearly sometimes it must be done if there is a evident leader.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:
I don't support this, but that's mostly because I'm to proud to be someone vessal. However if he's my ally, I will help him out.

NAPs:
So far I never broke a single NAP since I find NAPs honor bounding, but in no way an obligation and that they HAVE to be enforced.
Acceptable> Disregarding a NAP if there is a victory threat, certain spells cast, BOT, AC, AN, UD.

Not acceptable> Complaining about breaking a NAP when you never in fact answered the NAP proposal
Not acceptable> Refusing to admit that there was a NAP when there are clear evidence that there in fact WAS one, just admit you're a backstabber.

Metagaming:
I agree with VFB completely.


And here are some things I'd add.

-Attacking a player not a nation
-Enforcing vendettas for some other games
-Reviling information about another nation

-And this is possibly the thing I hate the most,
Attacking a staleing nation! Not an AI nation, this is of course a very logical thing to do, but to attack someone the moment you see they are gonna stale. This is just low tactics.
-And also, winning a game due to stales!? That's not a win. Letting someone stale out the game while you win is just, wrong, and I for one will never recognize such a victory.

Well, off to get some eye drops now...

[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.

[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.