I can see part of your problem although, if you apply common sense, there shouldn't be a problem


not backstabbing because someone doesn't backstab you isn't a favour

flagging out so as not to ruin anothers fight (if you know he generally wouldn't either) isn't a favour in 99% of the cases. Depends what you call "not ruin". You shouldn't go too easy on people either if there's an OK chance to get a better result for yourself. But you're right that KDice etiquette would say that you don't ruin someone for no good reason if you have no chance at all to get an improvement in game outcome.

granting people kills (+50 points) because someone else gave you his kill in a game before is a harmless favour imo. just like not stabbing, giving kills is part of building your reputation (trustworthy or not, fair or not, etc) all up to you

kill trading might become a problem again once they are scaled up to say 500 points for 5k kills.

Kill trading was a problem when they were possible in tournaments. People started using them to drag "friends" through another round.

On 0 and 100, without dom, there's no problem at all in wasting a few rounds to award a kill.

But like I said earlier, once kill bonusses get bigger on higher tables, they might become a potential source of abuse.

It will still be ok to give kills there of course. If you're small and can suicide to be killed quickly in a few rounds, sure, why not.

If both agree to a fight to the death at the start, sure why not.

But if known "friends" start giving weird kills where one person donates like 1k in dom just to give a kill (in more than one game), it can be a sneaky way of point funneling (which isn't allowed).

Now I don't plan to be superstrict with that but I can imagine there will be situations where warnings or bans might be needed.

Giving a kill is a game-to-game favor if it was "earned" by the recipient in a past game. Else it is just a random act of friendliness. Maybe you aim at getting that back, but then the reception would be a game-to-game favor, not the attempt to bribe the other guy to do it.

In general I would call a game-to-game favor anything I do or don't do in response to happenings in past games.

In that terms pge is just pga*(-1) and thus as bannable. I kill the fucker because he's been a dick 3 games earlier - a negative favor so to say. I flag out or don't attack because he spared me last game - clearly a favor.

At this point it should have become obvious that game-to-game favors are hard to be treated. You gain a reputation as backstabber and untrustworthy, you are likely to receive negative favors. Of course this works the other way around as well. I doubt punishing this social development is what has been intended by the rule.

So, extended definition:
A game-to-game favor is anything I do or don't do in response to happenings in the last game I played wit the effected player.

This way a well earned reputation and long lasting hostility would not be effected. PGE would be possible. PGA not, as it is excluded explicitely (alliances). The grey area of otf could survive with all the trouble it gives.

jurgen as for flagging out so as not to ruin anothers fight. Im talking about:
Player 1 (north): 10 territories
Player 2 (middle): 12 territories
Player 3 (south): 4 territories
We have all seen these types of situations.

Not backstabbing when it is in your interest to do so, is in my opinion a favor. You are giving another player the favor of cooperation over betrayal in order to benefit from the same in future games.

I'm glad jurgen and Louis, you both use the term 'reputation'. This is perhaps the heart of the matter and my argument. That 'reputation' is maintained by the granting of favors.

players 1 and 3 could (in some situations even should) truce,

player 3 doesn't automatically have to flag out

anywayzzz, more proof that this is going nowhere now

less discussion. more play.

Judas, favors are not forbidden. You can do a favor to whomever you like. Game-to-game favors are, returning a favor you received the next game can become a problem. So, in your example, if the small guy flagged out - no problem. If he helped one of the big ones to get a roll for 1st - no problem. If he sat for 2nd - no problem. The problem occurs, if the recipient of the favor give him an advantage next game. This is often hard to proof and very greyish. I don't think it is a serious problem atm though.

jurgen: "once kill bonusses get bigger on higher tables"
me: This still hasn't happened?
Ryan: stfu

It's been a long time since Ryan wrote the rule: Game-to-game favors or alliances are not allowed.

The loopholes and the way of the game on what's acceptable or not has progressed into an endless discussion that floats back up at the forum once in a while. It's going nowhere, discussions on what's this and that is pointless.

Basicly, everything you need to know about what's acceptable is in this thread, failing to understand or walking in the grey area has been banned consistantly and inconsitantly in the past by all the mods.

In short. Play to win, have fun. It's just a game.

It's a very good rule, I like it.

Louis Cypher wrote: Judas, favors are not forbidden. You can do a favor to whomever you like.

This is the crux of the issue. Why are people granting favors, contrary to their own interests (for the current game).

You can claim the behavior is not aimed at a specific player, but to the larger kdice community, specifically those who also play 'nice'.

So we now have a large number of players who only exhibit such behavior to these fellow players, a cabal!

if you speak a language other than english to another player on the table it's a pga