When do politics go too far in your opinion?

I really enjoy playing politically in EDH; I love having enough interaction to get even, and offering poisoned-chalice type deals to players about to die.

With that being said though, some deals seem really awful for the format, like arbitrarily buddying up with one of the other players, without some conditions or reasonable clauses of self-interest to keep it in check.

I was trying to think through it to solidify my own opinions on it, so I wanted to ask you all where you draw the lines for acceptable politicking, in your personal opinions.

Is it wrong to take advantage of players in a weaker position? Do you think unconditional alliances are fine? Do you think spite/revenge plays disincentivize interaction too much?

More specifically, what rules of thumb do you abide by, when making your own deals?

Edit: some common themes I see running around:

  • some folks dislike politics in most or all forms (which is an opinion I can respect, even if I disagree)

  • revenge plays can be contentious, but there is almost unanimous agreement that it should only happen as a response to the game you're currently in (clean slate for every game)

  • deals motivated by concepts external to the game, such as relationships with other players, are similarly disdained

  • breaking deals is taboo in most cases

  • taking advantage of inexperienced players with unfavorable deals is strongly frowned upon, but if you do, then you should always explain the player's mistake to them after (assuming they are receptive to the feedback)

  • self destructive behavior that doesn't improve your odds of winning the game is frowned upon, but potentially justifiable when it involves a proportionate and reasonable case of revenge.

  • many have noted that self destructive vendettas against players for proportionately minor interactions can warp the game unpleasantly (such as focusing a player for an entire game, after being attacked for 2 damage early on)

  • deals which are too vague or last too long are also viewed as poor deals by some

  • some believe that politics should only be used to correct imbalances at a table

  • most folks are fine with simple transactional agreements regarding interaction for important targets, or taking down a single, stronger opponent.

  • where possible, politics should generally be streamlined to avoid large time expenditures slowing down the game. This also means not whining, pleading, or excessively haggling after a player has already said no to a proposal.

  • some individuals also feel strongly that one shouldn't identify an archenemy due solely to the player or commander, before the game has started.