I Agree, Kingmaking can be a hard call. In many cases, kingmaking does not apply. It is only those cases of obvious kingmaking that will be judged upon. To use your example, the only obligation GJ would have is to stop Lannister from achieving his 7 castles. If Greyjoy left a castle absent, allowing lannister to obtain his 7th castle, for example, this would be kingmaking. If Greyjoy had an obvious opportunity to stop lannister from obtaining his 7th castle, provided it would not lead to himself placing in a lower position, this would also be kingmaking. If greyjoy provided support to lannister to obtain his 7th castle, again, kingmaking. In almost all other cases, kingmaking would not be called.kolasaft wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 16:52 Hey, I think this kingmaker thing will probably be lead to some difficult calls.
It can definitely happen that some player just failed to see a "play" which would've stopped player X from winning and then being accused of being a kingmaker.
Another scenario I can imagine is that say, Stark breaks a Non-aggression pact with GJ, resulting in GJ focusing the rest of the game on attacking Stark - simply out of spite... Even if that means giving Lannister free rein/win... fair or not? It can make sense to signal that you punish people who betray you very harshly if a group is playing multiple rounds.
I think some kind of adjudication system should be set up. Say, some players who are kind of known get called in to adjudicate, eg jhjh_108, secret_strategem, Crown, Zeb, Gereon (...??)
Mistakes can be made, and that would be taken into account. I also would like to add responsibility for other players to point out possible moves that could stop an opponent from winning. After all, first place should be your ultimate goal.