Board Game Arena

Imay wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 17:17 Do you even know the definition of kingmaking?
How can you post a player profile in the forum accusing him of something that you have no idea what it is??

1. Kingmaking is about doing moves that go in your defavor in order to beneficiate another player for him to win the game.
-> in that case, it didn't happpen

Imay wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 17:17 Do you even know the definition of kingmaking?
How can you post a player profile in the forum accusing him of something that you have no idea what it is??

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 17:58

Imay wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 17:17 Do you even know the definition of kingmaking?
How can you post a player profile in the forum accusing him of something that you have no idea what it is??

1. Kingmaking is about doing moves that go in your defavor in order to beneficiate another player for him to win the game.
-> in that case, it didn't happpen

I was wondering about this too. Seems like the original poster complained "Player A did something that allowed ME to win, so therefore they were kingmaking." This is not what that word means.

TheClaudeQc wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 20:36 It's exactly what happened with me (original poster),

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 23:09

TheClaudeQc wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 20:36 It's exactly what happened with me (original poster),

So you are complaining that you got the benefit of their actions? That isn't kingmaking. Kingmaking is when the second place person sees that they should have won, except for the actions of a third player who propelled the first-place player into the lead when the third player had a clear and obvious choice for a move that would better benefit themselves. Repeating what others have said, they were doing what they could to advance their own position; they were not making a move to their detriment just to advance someone else.

Any multiplayer game with interaction will have some moves that benefit (or at least hinder less) other players. There are even times when a player is faced with two options, each option benefiting a different player (and could potentially push that player into the win over the other player). These situations are not kingmaking. Kingmaking is when one player uses their resources only to advance another player, and not themselves.

TheClaudeQc wrote: ↑30 December 2020, 17:00

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 23:09

TheClaudeQc wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 20:36 It's exactly what happened with me (original poster),

So you are complaining that you got the benefit of their actions? That isn't kingmaking. Kingmaking is when the second place person sees that they should have won, except for the actions of a third player who propelled the first-place player into the lead when the third player had a clear and obvious choice for a move that would better benefit themselves. Repeating what others have said, they were doing what they could to advance their own position; they were not making a move to their detriment just to advance someone else.

Any multiplayer game with interaction will have some moves that benefit (or at least hinder less) other players. There are even times when a player is faced with two options, each option benefiting a different player (and could potentially push that player into the win over the other player). These situations are not kingmaking. Kingmaking is when one player uses their resources only to advance another player, and not themselves.

They could obviously go at 1st gear instead of 4th gear because a yellow flag was there. And by stopping at 4 make me going more far away than originally expected. And I stopped at 1st because I know I can't be overtaken there, but, you can provide a maximal potential by going the same or lower speed.

Giordano Bruno 1974 wrote: ↑30 December 2020, 19:52

TheClaudeQc wrote: ↑30 December 2020, 17:00

Jest Phulin wrote: ↑29 December 2020, 23:09

So you are complaining that you got the benefit of their actions? That isn't kingmaking. Kingmaking is when the second place person sees that they should have won, except for the actions of a third player who propelled the first-place player into the lead when the third player had a clear and obvious choice for a move that would better benefit themselves. Repeating what others have said, they were doing what they could to advance their own position; they were not making a move to their detriment just to advance someone else.

Any multiplayer game with interaction will have some moves that benefit (or at least hinder less) other players. There are even times when a player is faced with two options, each option benefiting a different player (and could potentially push that player into the win over the other player). These situations are not kingmaking. Kingmaking is when one player uses their resources only to advance another player, and not themselves.

They could obviously go at 1st gear instead of 4th gear because a yellow flag was there. And by stopping at 4 make me going more far away than originally expected. And I stopped at 1st because I know I can't be overtaken there, but, you can provide a maximal potential by going the same or lower speed.

I think we have come to a crossroads here. Either you can accept what everyone else is saying that this isn't kingmaking and if you call people out for it then you will get red thumbs or you can go on insisting that you are right and getting more red thumbs as a result.

The supposed "kingmaker" did nothing that I wouldn't have done in that situation and had you called me out for it, I'd have given you a red thumb. I think that goes for a lot of people.

N_Faker wrote: ↑30 December 2020, 20:17 Users may give red thumbs as they please. With or without any reason.

I thought this thread would be closed by now, considering the recent crackdown on 'user targeted threads'.