Kingmaking.

[nik592]

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.

If a player has to make a choice to hurt or benefit one of their opponents, they have to base that on something. Where possible, you base it on your own strategic position within the game, but if there is no difference to your game no matter which of your opponents you choose, you choose other things to base that decision on. I know in RL games, I've definitely both chosen to favour and chosen to hurt my husband for reasons having to do with our life ("I'm going to take the points off you cause you made me pack the dishwasher earlier", "I'm going to give you that resource because you brought me home cheesecake for dessert tonight"). My reasons are entirely tongue-in-cheek and everyone around the table knows it, but I still made a choice to favour (or not favour) a particular player. My RL friends will sometimes joke that players who are part of a couple "always" favour each other (and sometimes the reverse), but I don't think anyone has ever accused anyone of serious kingmaking. But if you observed those games on the face of it, maybe someone else would.

And there has been a time or two where the final move of a game goes to a player with no chance at first (or second), and what they do WILL cause one player to win and one player to come second. They have to make a choice - they can't base on how it affects their game. What should they do? Whichever way they choose, is it kingmaking?

[BarnardsStar]

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?

It’s in the FAQ.

[stillframe]

I am curious about this game where a player, upon elimination, gives all her remaining resources to a player of her choice. Is this hypothetical, or does such a game exist?

[tbhp]

Where possible, you base it on your own strategic position within the game, but if there is no difference to your game no matter which of your opponents you choose, you choose other things to base that decision on.

Indeed, and all reasons are fine as long as the intention is not to advantage or disadvantage a particular player. That's favoritism, which clearly doesn't fit the spirit of sportsmanship.

It may be considered okay in casual settings where you are playing to have fun, so the allusion to your interpersonal relationships may somewhat fit the context. But it's reviled in any competitive setting. A game is supposed to be won through skill or luck (if the game involves that), not because one of the players decided to stand above the game and pick their winner.

The same behavior would clearly face serious repercussions in any professional sport. The only reason it doesn't is because it is almost impossible to prove that a team intentionally did that.

[nik592]

Indeed, and all reasons are fine as long as the intention is not to advantage or disadvantage a particular player. That's favoritism, which clearly doesn't fit the spirit of sportsmanship.

If it doesn't matter to my own game whether I give an extra resource to Player A or Player B, and I choose Player B, I am favouring them. I am giving them an advantage. I have to choose to favour someone. And if you're Player A, you might feel maligned. Hopefully I might recall that I gave Player B an advantage last time that choice came along and give it to Player A next time, but I am human. Not only that, but where a second choice arises and now it does matter to my own game and giving Player B is the better choice, Player A can feel like I am favouring Player B because I gave them an advantage twice. Some players might feel like I am colluding with Player B, call it kingmaking, etc. When you're Player A, it's harder to see my reasons for making a decision, you're thinking about your own game. What you see is the perceived pattern that I favoured Player B twice and you not at all.

The same behavior would clearly face serious repercussions in any professional sport. The only reason it doesn't is because it is almost impossible to prove that a team intentionally did that.

If you can prove a clear pattern of collusion between two players, there are repercussions here too, but there has to be a decent amount of evidence to support it. Same in a professional sports context - yes, there are repercussions if it can be proven, but it's pretty hard to do that (short of some kind of paper trail or recording of someone admitting to it). That said, most sport is purely adversarial - you aren't often presented with decisions that give an advantage to an opponent but don't affect your own game, so you're usually going to choose to do what is best for your own game.

But the reality is that people make decisions every day to favour one opponent over the other. Sometimes that decision is explained by an impact on your own game - well, I am not giving that extra resource to Player A because that might mean I can get ahead of them on points. But sometimes there's not a clear choice.

[tbhp]

Indeed, and all reasons are fine as long as the intention is not to advantage or disadvantage a particular player. That's favoritism, which clearly doesn't fit the spirit of sportsmanship.

If it doesn't matter to my own game whether I give an extra resource to Player A or Player B, and I choose Player B, I am favouring them. I am giving them an advantage. I have to choose to favour someone.

The important distinction is whether you are intentionally favouring someone. If you favour player A because you have a personal issue with player B, that's not something that should have an influence on how a game is played.

Most games work differently than the example you give, as the choice in question would be more about how you are going to complete your own board, so you'd go with what feels right to you. In the example where you literally are giving a resource to someone, I'd say in that case the way to go about it would be to literally toss a coin, or use a random number simulator.

That's because the human brain is not good at making truly random decisions. No matter how much you try to be impartial, there's probably going to be something motivating your choice one way or another.

I don't really agree with the idea that if you favoured someone once, then you should favour the other person the next time. I think the coin toss should be redone every time, because that's how luck works: just because you were unlucky the first time, doesn't mean that your odds of being unlucky become any different the second time.

It's also somewhat similar to how football for example decides the circumstances of a penalty shootout with a coin toss. They aren't gonna say that because one team lost the coin toss in the previous penalties they played, that they should automatically win it this time.

[nik592]

In the example where you literally are giving a resource to someone, I'd say in that case the way to go about it would be to literally toss a coin, or use a random number simulator.

That's because the human brain is not good at making truly random decisions. No matter how much you try to be impartial, there's probably going to be something motivating your choice one way or another.

Yes, the human brain is not good at making random decisions. But do you keep a coin handy or look up an RNG when making that kind of decision? I don't. I suspect most players don't.

I don't really agree with the idea that if you favoured someone once, then you should favour the other person the next time. I think the coin toss should be redone every time, because that's how luck works: just because you were unlucky the first time, doesn't mean that your odds of being unlucky become any different the second time.

That's true, but again, the human brain isn't good at making random decisions - I bet a lot of people operate on the "well, I gave it to B last time, this time I should choose A so it's fair". And even less good at seeing randomness for what it really is - if my coin toss says I should favour Player B every time, there's a good chance Player A will notice that and feel like it's unfair.

My point is, when someone observes what they believe to be kingmaking, probably a lot of the time, it's just people making decisions. And even if it isn't, you can't get inside your opponent's head to know for sure - if you really think so, red thumb and move on. These kinds of issues (one-off, perceived unfairness, as opposed to an obvious pattern of collusion) are not worth a moderator's time.