Kingmaking.

[nik592]

I meant, External players who read the exposed article vote for the side they believe has the problem.
We're talking about matters outside the moderator's jurisdiction. Of course, it would be better if the moderator addressed the kingmaker problems.

I did suggest that as one interpretation of your post. That's not all that different to jury duty - which, while I know that's an important civic duty, people generally hate doing it. I can't see most people signing up for it for something like deciding kingmaking, and forcing people to do it isn't going to end well either. Plus, I assume you want people who know the game in question so they can actually tell if it's kingmaking, and for some games, player pools are actually quite small, which also causes several problems.

Kingmaking is mostly best dealt with by red thumb. It means you won't play them again (outside tournaments), and if they really are kingmaking, eventually enough people will red thumb that it may be hard to get games. That's the theory anyway, but again, depends on your player pool size.

[andertikin]

In my opinion, Participation in the judgment is voluntary.In other words, it's free. Maybe,Further discussion of my proposal is probably pointless.

[FDHenneberg]

Let’s not call that kingmaking, let’s call that collusion. Kingmaking is something that can happen in many board games, without anyone wanting to cheat. Kingmaking just means that the actions of a player who doesn’t have a chance to win decide who will be the winner. It’s a matter of game design if this is something that happens often, hardly ever or all the time. You can red-thumb a kingmaker if you think you have to (I wouldn’t, most of the time), but I think it’s correct that kingmaking without collusion isn’t subject to moderation in any form.

I’m saying this just because we don’t even know if the original post referred to collusion or to kingmaking.

Andertikin, of course, is referring to collusion, and while I’m pretty sure that there will never be a jury system or a volunteer system, I like the idea (as long as regular kingmaking wouldn’t be subjected to that, only when there are hints at collusion, like when players often play together, and an analysis of the stats shows that playing together so often isn’t normal in the game in question).

[Archisian]

Let’s not call that kingmaking, let’s call that collusion. Kingmaking is something that can happen in many board games, without anyone wanting to cheat. Kingmaking just means that the actions of a player who doesn’t have a chance to win decide who will be the winner. It’s a matter of game design if this is something that happens often, hardly ever or all the time. You can red-thumb a kingmaker if you think you have to (I wouldn’t, most of the time), but I think it’s correct that kingmaking without collusion isn’t subject to moderation in any form.

I’m saying this just because we don’t even know if the original post referred to collusion or to kingmaking.

Andertikin, of course, is referring to collusion, and while I’m pretty sure that there will never be a jury system or a volunteer system, I like the idea (as long as regular kingmaking wouldn’t be subjected to that, only when there are hints at collusion, like when players often play together, and an analysis of the stats shows that playing together so often isn’t normal in the game in question).

Right, because there could be a scenario where, if I lost a game with random people and can move resources to another player, at that moment, I might choose to give the next losing player in the hopes that they win. Or I could decide to give it to the winning player to cement their victory. The resources have to go somewhere, right? I don't see it as a issue.

The only time I could see a problem is, as you said, actual collusion where the other players know each other. But even then, I think it would be weird for there to be a demand to give the resources to the opposing player that the colluders don't know. That would effectively making the other player the potential winner solely for the fact that they aren't within the other player's circle. Seems like no outcome would be viewed as fair.

[BarnardsStar]

Right, because there could be a scenario where, if I lost a game with random people and can move resources to another player, at that moment, I might choose to give the next losing player in the hopes that they win. Or I could decide to give it to the winning player to cement their victory. The resources have to go somewhere, right? I don't see it as a issue.

Exactly - let’s not forget that the code of conduct only forbids “kingmaking” if “there is a better move to make for yourself.”

[tbhp]

I agree that the site seems too lenient about certain behaviors, when compared to how strict they can be about other things.

I'm not saying slurs are a good thing, but there are unsportsmanlike behaviors that have the potential to hurt people a lot more, yet seem to get away much more easily.

[FDHenneberg]

Exactly - let’s not forget that the code of conduct only forbids “kingmaking” if “there is a better move to make for yourself.”

Ah, interesting, where can I find that? I only knew about the fair play paragraph in the terms of use (section VII) which mentions cheating and more, but not kingmaking. This type of distinction doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense though. In theory, sure, it’s better than referring to collusion because some trolls might just do that because they think it’s funny or for whatever reason. But how to distinguish intentional kingmaking (when you knew you had a better option for yourself) from unintentional kingmaking (when you didn’t know you had a better option for yourself)? That seems impossible to me. I’ve had situations where I was accused of kingmaking and I swear I was positive that what I had done was the right thing for me. Not being great at a game isn’t a crime. It’s not that I didn’t know the rules, it’s just that people are better at
the game or care more about calculating when the scoring is hidden. So that’s why I say that it would be important to do something against collusion, but not against kingmaking in general, even if in theory, I also think that intentional kingmaking while having better options for yourself is unfair even without collusion.

[tbhp]

How can you prove that? If a game that gives a losing player to distribute their resources, what's the best way to go about it? Flip a coin? Seems like no matter if it's a random choice or a deliberate choosing, the other players are going to hate it.

Favoring a player on purpose is not exactly what we would consider "random".

People can accept that they lost a game because a player had an equivalent choice between two colours, and they picked their favourite colour. People aren't gonna accept that they lost because a player wanted them to lose specifically. That's terrible sportsmanship, if not against the rules.

Right, because there could be a scenario where, if I lost a game with random people and can move resources to another player, at that moment, I might choose to give the next losing player in the hopes that they win. Or I could decide to give it to the winning player to cement their victory. The resources have to go somewhere, right? I don't see it as a issue.

You say it yourself, you are "hoping" that they win, so that would be a clear case of kingmaking, not just a matter of resources have to go somewhere.

You are supposed to make your moves naturally, like if you didn't know about the situation between the other players. Your moves must benefit either your strategic interests or, if those have equivalent outcomes, your sense of aesthetics. If you look at the other players and start feeling a certain way about it and this influences the choice you make, that's kingmaking.

[Archisian]

How can you prove that? If a game that gives a losing player to distribute their resources, what's the best way to go about it? Flip a coin? Seems like no matter if it's a random choice or a deliberate choosing, the other players are going to hate it.

Favoring a player on purpose is not exactly what we would consider "random".

People can accept that they lost a game because a player had an equivalent choice between two colours, and they picked their favourite colour. People aren't gonna accept that they lost because a player wanted them to lose specifically. That's terrible sportsmanship, if not against the rules.

I was distinguishing between flipping a coin (random) and actively choosing a player. I don't necessarily think many people are going to accept a loss just because one of the opponents decided to make the other the winner based on their favorite color. I think that's equivalent to wanting the other player to lose specifically because of a preference they have.

It could be poor sportsmanship, but I don't how that's supposed to be against any rules. In a game, unless it's a cooperative game, everyone is your opponent. If the game is lost for me, I could decide to help an opponent who didn't screw me over. I don't see how that's against a rule. You could argue that it's poor sportsmanship, but I don't see how anyone is obligated to help all opponents if the have no chance to win.

Overall, I see no circumstance that will please everyone.

[Hervor]

Exactly - let’s not forget that the code of conduct only forbids “kingmaking” if “there is a better move to make for yourself.”

Related to that, some players seem to think that playing for second place (when you can't win) is kingmaking. If I know or believe I cannot win, I don't care if first place is 5 or 10 points ahead of me. When presented with a situation where I have to make a move that either is good for the player in first place or the player I'm competing for second place with, I am choosing to "help" the player in first place. This is still a good move for me, because second place is better then third.