This question already has an answer here:
I was playing settlers of Catan with the following players. Note all names are fictitious.
Donny - Me Ned - My brother Bob - Ned's best friend Steve - Donny and Ned's dad CK - two inexperienced players on one team (sister and Ned's girlfriend) Corey - Donnys wife
So I was the first to build something of value when I built a city on a 5. After that point that 5 became a target that would get targeted for most of the game. In the beginning it would switch from that 5 which had me and another player on it (hurt me more) and a 9 which just had me on it.
In about 4 turns I had lost around 6 cards to monopoly and people putting robber on me. All good so far with that. Then other people started to build and I stayed stagnant as I was everyone's target. After everyone else started building out roads and settlements the robber still stayed on me for a good 7 or 8 turns (either no one cares bc it wasn't on them or didn't have anything to move it).
I noticed Ned was starting to look very strong because he was getting ahead as he had maybe 5 VP and second place had 3.. and I was in at least third but yet the robber still on me. Then people started moving the robber to a space Ned was on AND someone else even though he had two settlements on a 9 and was clearly ahead in first place. They would put it on a 5 or 6 to target him but on each of those resources he only had 1 settlement whereas I had two and Corey had two. Also when they would put it on a spot to "target" Ned they would still take from me or Corey.
So throughout the game I was trying to tell people hey maybe we should put it on a spot that targets more than one resource of Ned's and not put it on a spot that hurts me or Corey more. For some reason Bob kept defending Ned stating why not target more than one person even when Ned is clearly winning. He used the example in the last x amount of turns they lost 9 resources. My argument was yes BUT 3 of those were Neds (brick during middle to end game that he didn't need as he only had one city built) and 6 were from Corey who had no chance of winning (blocked in had nowhere to really build). I was saying he would lose more resources and it would hurt him more if they put it on a different spot that only target him with two settlemts on it. Bob still defended that point in favor for Ned.
It got to a point where Ned had two knights played, 7 VP and even started working on Longest road and rest of us not even close yet the robber was on a space that targeted me or Corey more than Ned. Also the space it was on for a while was a 9 which was a brick resource. We were already mid to end game so brick is not as important as say wheat, which was also on a 9 and he had two resources on it. There was also a 6 Sheep Ned was on and he had two for one sheep. For example, when a 9 was rolled he would lose out on one brick but would still gain 3 other cards while Corey would get nothing. So obviously hurting Corey more than Ned even though Ned is crushing us at this point. The overall point I kept trying to make is why are we not targeting his sheep factory or his wheat 9 as opposed to only hurting him by one resource and two resources to the other player. He was literally crushing us, had a bunch of cards and people were still doing one for one trades as well with him. In any game I have played, they have stopped trading with me at 8 VP but this was apparently different somehow. (I have played with Ned and Bob multiple times in the past)
So pretty much drama ensued as I tried to tell people Ned is crushing us, we should probably start targeting him more. What was weird is Bob was defending Ned about everything I said and just saying I was bitter or whatever else trying to get in my head. It got to a point where I felt that Ned and mainly Bob were just pushing my buttons wanting me to explode.
Also the entire game when someone was trying to make a deal with player B and a third player would come in and say done I'll do it, they would accept that deal. I went in and did that trying to get a deal with Bob but he still waited for dad to think and make the deal and made the excuse that he was talking with him even though precedent showed that worked for everyone else before then. I would then make an angry comment about it that which would then lead to more arguing etc. There was even a point where a 7 was rolled and Bob would say to put it on a certain spot that didn't target Ned just because it would be funny how pissed I would be. It got to the point where I'm calling people (yelling) idiots for not seeing that Ned was crushing us and you can put robber there if you are an idiot. Ned even said you're right I'm going to win there is nothing you can do, it's inpossible to hurt me. He would say that yet we were still only hurting him by one resource. What sucks is Ned and Bob were more passive aggressive where I was more outright agressive and loud.
In the end Ned did indeed win the game in dominating fashion which I was calling for all along. I ended up looking crazy because I was the loudest even though I felt I was being instigated by Ned and mainly Bob the entire game. My wife then vowed to never play again. (Which she has vowed before)
Also Bob did a future trade with someone else which is something we have never ever done before. And Bob had never been up Ned's butt so much before. I don't get why he was being so defensive when I'm just trying to not have Ned win yet no one else seemed to understand.
Was I right to be trying to convince players to target Ned more than they were or was I overreacting? Was I right for getting so annoyed at the way people were playing?
What may have been a better way to get people to target the first place person? What strategies have you used, especially while being very angry or picked on.