I love that circular hanezeki by Harry Fearnley.
I even created a topic in the past about it:
See this post for my detailed analysis.
In my earlier abstract example involving Alice, Bob, and Charlie, I was envisioning something like this:
Where the players are:
Alice
Bob
Charlie
If they all pass and go to scoring, then they might count Charlie’s stones as dead and the rest of the stones as alive. This would give Bob the win.
Alice would want to claim that Bob’s stones in the bottom right are dead, but needs the cooperation of Charlie to accomplish that.
Thus, Charlie could choose to help Alice win instead of Bob, and maybe he would wish to do that in order to spite Bob. Alternative, he might wish to simply let Bob win in order to spite Alice.
However, given his position as the kingmaker, he could instead try to persuade both Alice and Bob to vote for the three-way draw, by threatening to punish whoever does not comply. If Alice and Bob are very risk averse, they may just readily comply with accepting a three-way draw.
However, yet again, maybe Alice and Bob really hate the idea of Charlie weaseling their way into a draw in this way, denying either of them from getting win, so maybe they might both refuse to accept a draw, and simply tell Charlie to pick a winner at random. This could make sense, if both Alice and Bob would rather prefer a 50% win, 50% loss lottery to a 100% three-way draw outcome.