I said "Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue."
Then DonC & Micah just went right ahead and proved my point. I disagree with you and certainly am not the only one, I think I even saw similar opinions in this thread (although I admit to not having read it all). So you disagree with me and I/ppl that think the same disagree back
You'd say that gem giving is ok and VP giving is not. I'd say they are ultimately very similar - actually equivalent in the abstract manner of how many steps it gets one closer to winning. Then you'd go back and say they they are not the same since VPs are suicide while gems are not. I beg your pardon but that's not true. 1500 gems are a big deal. Use 1k for AN and you practically ensure winning. Imagine nation A is 10% stronger than B in end game. Nation A is en route to winning when B gets 2k gems. Now B can cast a bunch of globals or do whatever it wants and grab the victory. Those 2k gems would translate if you like to VPs.
Micah, you said "Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly."
First of that's somewhat rude phrasing you chose. You are blatantly disregarding and demeaning an opinion different than your own. Second, that's absolutely true. The exchange of VPs in end game is very likely to be monitored so nation B can intervene directly and prevent that from happening. When 2k gems are given to nation B nation A can do nothing about it, knows nothing about it and will surely lose due to this. The same will happen to nation C that gave the 2k gems - so it's suicidal for C as well.
Edit: you also said "1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game."
Micah, that is not the point, the point is the principal that X amount of gems, or Y amount of items or Z amount of VPs are all "mathematically" equal in the "winning factor" they represent. What is the exact ratio is of course elusive, depends on context and many other circumstantial factors. 1.5K gems can certainly be worth a victory in certain circumstance, if not 1.5K then 2K or 2.5K etc. Enough gems wins games and that's a fact, the only difference with VPs is that there's no accumulate gems victory condition so the player actually has to translate gems to victory conditions.
We can go and on forever. There will never be an agreement b/c this is a matter of opinions and we don't all think the same. That's why I suggested that in order to make progress with the matter at hand ( if that's indeed what this thread is about and just a sparring arena
) we need to put all king making acts in the same basket and treat them the same. Otherwise dissension may always result and this discussion will just go off track to what is actually a side issue.