SpielByWeb

[Kanga]

http://www.spielbyweb.com/game.php?games_id=13931

By my calculations, scores before the bribes in the last round


Grey 61
White 57
Green 56
Black 53
Purple 51

Green (Mercutio) has obviously got something against Grey (smurphboogie) and has offered Black (PontusNalle) a 9 gold bribe for something that gains Green 2. The 9 gold is clearly calculated to give Black the game.

Any thoughts / comments? Personally I think Mercutio should be banned from future games.

[sbryantf]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to avoid games with Mercutio in the future. I think that's the way to handle this sort of thing -- if somebody gains a reputation for unreasonable play, then nobody will want to play with them. But I don't think it's fair to ask the mods to ban people based on their playing style.

-Bryant

[Kanga]

It's a bit worse than simply a playing style. It's pure Kingmaking, and if this is allowed (especially so blatantly), then it defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place. Why bother battling it out in what was the closest game I've played in, only to have the result determined like this? I'll just get a friend to play in all my games, and no matter how badly I play, one well timed bribe and I'll be able to win all my games.

A formal warning not to do it again might be a third option, I'll see if I can add it into the poll.

[docaction]

Kanga simply balance the game by giving the grey player your extra canal?
I didn't do the calculations but it would give the grey player 4 extra points !!!

Now it's your chance to balance the game

[Kanga]

Yes, I worked out I can do that (and I will).

[Wernazuma]

While I despise this kind of kingmaking, you'd better forget about it if it happens to you once as long as it doesn't become a general problem. I've seen games on BSW, where two people blatantly ganged up against the rest (i.e. me).

Personally, I start to care if it happens to me more than once with the same person. Just avoid such idiots.

[Kanga]

The only problem with saying avoid this specific player is on this site, you have no control over who joins games you are in if it is not a passworded game.

On reflection, I'd advocate a warning to Mercutio not to do this again before a ban.

[sbryantf]

Personally, I would consider pure kingmaking to be a style of play. Certainly not a style of play that I would advocate, but a style nonetheless. I don't want to play with somebody who intentionally plays kingmaker any more than you do, but unless a person violates either the rules of the game or the terms and conditions of SBW*, I don't think it is justified to take any sort of punitive actions against them.

You're absolutely right that it would take all the fun out of the games if people consistently played kingmaker. But who is going to decide in each instance whether or not kingmaking has occurred? Presumably the mods. But this opens up all sorts of other unnecessary issues. What if a mod is playing in a game where somebody is accused of kingmaking? What if the friend of a mod is in such a game?

One last thing -- have you gotten any sort of response from Mercutio on this issue? It is entirely possible that this is not actually an example of "blatant kingmaking' (although I agree kingmaking is the most likely explanation). Maybe it was a misclick. Maybe he left he was thinking about his move and left the window open in his browser when somebody else (a child, perhaps) came along and clicked around. Maybe he just isn't a good player or doesn't understand the rules. Maybe he made the unwise decision to play his turns while intoxicated.

* By my estimation Mercution has not done so in this case, although the argument could be made that he hasn't treated his fellow gamers politely.

[PontusNalle]

I am sad to read that our game of Santiago has caused such trouble and negative emotions. This is my second game of Santiago ever and I am still having a hard time measuring every pros and cons in each move I make. But I must say I was surprised by the generous bribe Mercutio offered me.
Yes, it pushes the entire game off-balance and that is unfortunate. But I think Mercutio has gotten the message. Banning him/her sounds unreasonable.

Well, it is my move... what shall I do?

[Kanga]

Take the bribe, as it's not your fault Mercutio has made this offer. In any case, I can prevent it changing the result by using my extra canal.

[Golux13]

But doesn't that make you as much a kingmaker as Mercutio? Do two wrongs make a right?

We have had a similar discussion before -- in a different context -- in these forums. My philosophy of gaming is that you play to win, and your moves should be calculated to maximize your likelihood of doing so. Making a sub-optimal move for the purpose of benefitting another player is poor sportsmanship and likely to lead to hard feelings.

Now there may be situations where you have no chance of winning and you still have to make a move. In that situation in many games, it is often true that your move will benefit one opponent more than another, so you have to choose. My approach is to always maximize my own score or position, and let the chips fall where they may. This is, in my view, preferable to making my decision based on which opponent will win as a result.

The placement of the extra canal in Santiago is always optional. By choosing to place it when you do not have to, when it does not advance your position and when it is your intent to benefit one opponent over another, I think you are as guilty as Mercutio of poor sportsmanship. Think of it this way: If your opponent were cheating, would you cheat in response? Or would you just call him on it, let the game go and resolve not to play with him again? (Note, I don't think either Mercutio's action or your proposed move are cheating.)

[Kanga]

While I understand your point, I dont agree with it. In this game, there is only one player who should win the game. Mercutio's move is obviously designed solely to stop this, for whatever motive. In any FtF game I've played in, the move simply would not be allowed. By placing my extra canal, I am simply allowing the player who deserves to win the game to do so.

Alternatively, we could have asked Pontus to not take the bribe - in the same situation, I wouldn't accept the bribe. From his comments above, I suspect Pontus would have agreed to this - perhaps this would have been a better approach.

[Golux13]

I think your alternative -- Pontus refusing the bribe -- would be a more appropriate response than for an uninvolved player to make a separate kingmaking move.

Have you considered that Mercutio's move might have been intended only to prevent Pontus from placing a canal wherever he wanted? I don't know what the board situation was like -- can't tell which desert tiles were still viable before the end -- but based on the final accounting, I can see that Pontus must have had 9 escudos before the bribe -- so a bribe of 9 would ensure that Pontus could not choose his own location for the canal. Of course, it makes no sense to give up 9 points to get 2 (or as it turned out, 4) but an inexperienced player may not have been thinking that way.

I guess in the end, my point is that you don't know for a fact that Mercutio was acting out of malice toward the grey player or to help one of the other players. At best, you can say it was a bad move. Games are often decided by mistakes, and to assume before the final scores are counted that one player "should" be the winner is, and to take steps that are not to your own advantage to ensure the "right" result, is at best bad form.

[Kanga]

Just to clarify, there was no possible reason for a bid of 9, other than to change the result of the game. Pontus had no square he needed irrigated. The choice of 9, the precise amount required to change the result of the game, seems (to me at least) to have to have been chosen for that reason alone.

Despite your reasonable comments Golux, I think I'd still use my canal to allow the result to stand as it should have been. These were a very extreme set of circumstances that I'd be surprised to see repeated.

The Kingmaker opportunities are one big negative about Santiago. More often, it is the Canal Overseer choosing who wins by deciding which bribe to take.

[rhmt01]

I'd have to say this is a legitimate tactic in, especially in tournament play where your place equals a ranking.

If it was game in round robin series, and needed to hit a leader (depending on how championship points are allocated).

Otherwise I don't believe any move made within the rules of the game should result in someone warned, let alone getting banned.

A player should be able to play his or her game in whatever style they wish, and however they wish. If you don't like someones style of play, simply don't play with them, otherwise don't complain.

Like sometimes when I'm not in a winning position I would try something "new" to see how it works, and had arguments about how you should always make moves that improve your position.

I believe this is an invalid argument as you arn't considering why they are here. They are here to PLAY THEIR OWN GAME, whether you are maximising your position to win the current game, or exploring possibilities for a future game.

It is like some f2f groups that maximise the moves of everyone in the group. What is the point of that? Just an exercise in group maximisation?

It should be remembered that the reasons people play PBW are usually different to f2f play.

Someone that makes a hastly move in 30 seconds isn't inconvenienced by someone that takes 10 minutes to consider all possibilities.

People come here to try strategies they want to try in f2f games.

The sheer number of games you can join means you could be playing seriously to win in some games, where as trying new and novel strategies in others.

Whats next? someone write a list of "usual" strategies in a game and suggest the banning of players that do not play the "usual" way? Would someone suggest the banning of someone who bid 10 first round saying they gave too much of a lead to the CO?

If its in the rules, it must be allowed. Anything else is "house rules".

The leader will usually win if status quo (standard game strategy) continued for the rest of the game, so they are first to complain when someone stops playing "the usual way".

People should be left alone to play their own game, if you don't like their playing style, simply don't play with them.