1. No
2. No
3. Not unless it happened repeatedly
4. It shouldn’t be, but human nature being what it is, it probably happens occasionally.  More likely, I’ll probably be prejudiced *against* someone I’m not particularly fond of.
5. No one likes to lose to a poor winner.  Otherwise, not really.

Guess I shouldn’t audition for Survivor.  Good thing, I have no idea how the show works!

My answers…

1) No, it isn’t fair.  But it happens from time to time in our group.  Oftentimes, the target changes depending on which game we’re playing
2) I don’t really try to maneuver for seating order
3) I try not to let it happen, but I can’t say that I’ve never fallen into that trap
4) Not really… If I make a decision that will help someone else, I usually just try to help someone based on the game situation itself (not external causes) such as who is in last place or who is a player I’m not in direct competition with
5) Yes. I hate losing to Larry.  Not that it happens much.

1. All things being equal, no it isn’t fair. However you did throw in the historical caveat.

El Grande is a favourite game of one group of gamers I play with. One of the regulars is very adept at the game and either wins or finishes very high. When I have a decision to make that has negative connotations for my opponents, I make sure to look at his position. It is always in the back of my mind to be fair and balanced, but he will be my target more often than not. Could I justify this as in-game handicapping?

2. No, I just pick the closest seat.

3. Remember? Yes. Act on it? Same answer as both Larry and Dale.

4. No. I always target the leader, even if the resulting action will not change the final outcome of the game.

5. Yes, beginners in a teaching game. Otherwise, No.

How about another question for your list: Do you have any boardgame nemeses or arch rivals, friendly or otherwise?

Peace

Ooooh....  Good question Brent.  Sometimes females are welcomed with skepticism on BoardGameGeek and there was a harrassing user who insisted that I wasn’t real for a while when I started posting several years ago.  It’s hard to call him an arch rival, since I’ve never met him or played a game with him, but I’ll admit that I would prefer to keep it that way.  I’ve also exchanged unpleasantries with someone over a WBC incident.  Again, the personal rivalvy is long forgotten, but I have chosen not to go back to WBC in part because the atmosphere causes an ugly, uber-competitive, evil Valerie to emerge.

I do envy the far more friendly rivalry and the witty sparring that results from Dale and Larry.  They make adorable nemeses.

1. Rule #3 in pretty much any game I play with the usual suspects is...whenever possible, screw Frank. It is even called Rule #3. The assumption is that I’m probably in the lead, but no one but me has quite worked out how yet.

2. I actually like the reverse choice for Loopin Louie. Makes it a challenge---and I need to work more on the kinda hard shots that take out the player to my left.

3. Is the way you should actually play a game. A large part of games with alliances and negotiation is working how how people behave and how far you can trust them. Previous histories are your best clue.

4. I sometimes choose a player by how much it will annoy the other players by helping that player. The art of being mean while doing something nice.

5. There are a few arch rivals. But anyone invoking rule #3 needs to be taught a lesson.

1. Fair, no.  Do I do it and encourage it at times, sure, depending on the game and the player.  Sometimes, I am the “victim” of this practice and take it as a compliment.  A good thing about TGOO is that the score isn’t an accurate way to assess who’s leading, so you can claim that the target player is in a better position.
2. The only seat maneuvering that I do is for the one from which it’s easiest to make beer/coffee/snack runs.  If my kids are playing with a group of my friends, I do try to not be to their left, if it’s convenient.  This is more to avoid accusations now.  But my master plan is that when they get really good I’ll have the habit established and have an advantage.  (In some games, it’s already paying off...)
3. Of course.  Having broken a deal in the past doesn’t mean that I won’t deal with someone in the future, but if the offers from two players are similar and neither is a runaway leader, who wouldn’t take the more trustworthy one?
4. It might be a tiebreaker if two courses of action are similar, depending on my mood.  If I could win a game making a deal/play to my wife/child’s detriment, well let’s just say we have a comfortable couch.  :-)
I don’t think anyone that’s played with my wife and I have ever accused us of collaboration.  My kids know that in boardgames if they beat me, they beat me.  In physical “contests,” I don’t go all out, but in boardgames, they earn their wins, no gifts.  The only characteristic that might affect this would be if someone’s had a really bad day and/or are a newbie.
5. Hmm, good question and I think the answer is yes.  If someone wins three games in a row and I can’t win, I’d probably prefer a new winner.  If I was in a group with a poor winner, I might play against him/her, but probably not.