I am ultra-competitive, but I try my best to remember that it is in the end just a game. I agree with you, BM is not like a board game where there is an end state, but neither is there usually an end for a well played diplomacy game where everyone is reasonably equally skilled. I am trying to draw the parallel in the atmosphere of BM and a board game, and even the competitive nature presents some parallels as well.
...
I agree that when I play diplomacy, I teach/tell those who are not as familiar about the same things, those are basic strategies. I see stalemate lines in a variety of tutorials/strategy guides, and these are fairly common occurrences in good games, even not at the highest levels. But do you tell your friends exactly what you plan on doing in every single situation? Do you teach them what to do in each exact circumstance? I don't, since unless they actually play and have fun, they will not be able to get better and be able to react to any situation successfully.
And as Perth noted, yes, I do exactly that. I tell my enemies my strategies, and sometimes help them plan counter-moves. I'm even more involved with my allies. Recently played a game where I was the only experienced player and, before playing, systematically went through the entire rule book, every example, before playing. I don't want to use a strategy against a friend that my friend didn't realize existed, because he may feel (often does feel) cheated by such unfair play. I want to play with an equal.
I'm not very competitive at all. I don't want to win. I want to play for as long as possible. And that's the difference here. I see the criticisms of this advanced mentoring as predominantly coming from a place of "This will reduce the competitive advantage of long-term players." And that is totally unacceptable IMHO. If it reduces the competitive advantage of long-term players, it is good.
