Board Games = Social Contracts

Share

Last weekend, we introduced my sister's boyfriend to what has become a family tradition. After I moved down here in 2007, on days when my sister felt particularly low or bored, we would play the Barbie Queen of the Prom game. So, we forced him to play with us. Despite my very best showing ever, I still managed to keep a perfect streak of never having won that game. He however had beginner's luck.

Board games are far less popular than they once were. They taught us several important lessons about life that may be lacking in the world today, especially among members of the in silico generation.

These games taught us about rules. They taught us that rules exist and that rules apply and that rules apply to everyone equally. We know that even if the game starts with the player to my left and continues around clockwise, eventually I will get my turn. You take yours, and then I take mine, and then and only then do you get another. Sure, there may be cards that periodically force me to be skipped, draw cards, or lose a turn, but everyone has the same statistical chance of being able to use those. If every card said "Skip Doug", I would probably not play, because that would not be a fair rule.

People seem fascinated with the terms 'fair' and 'equal' while they apply rules that are not true across the board. They like to redefine the rules in the middle of the game. Famous are the rules for women, in which one says that if men ever catch wind of the rules, women must change one or all of the rules and that women are always right. I even once had someone try to get me to sign a contract to change the rules between us. The problem with that is that I have frequently kept the rules and delivered my part whereas they try to change the rules before they are obligated to reciprocate, often requiring me to do more to get the original promised terms. In this particular case, I refused to sign, got in my car, and drove away.

Games teach us about the social contract. Whenever contracts are subject to change in terms, everyone is free to reevaluate whether they wish to remain as party to the contract. Whenever someone violates the contract, everyone else is free to withdraw without punishment. Sure, the violators may cry foul and blame you and say you are arrogant, but that's because they are immature. Contracts don't matter to them. Only their own wishes matter. Remember as you run across people who are this way that their unwillingness to play by the rules is nothing more than a mark of immaturity.

When you find yourself in that position, it's really up to you what kind of relationship you have with those people in the future. It isn't that you don't forgive them. It isn't that you're suspicious of trusting them or holding it against them. It's that you choose to avoid entering into future contracts with them, especially when you can enter into contracts with alternative parties. It is not 'fair' or 'equal' for one side to always get its way, but you to have to suck it up because that's what Christ would do. Yet, they reserve the right to do that to you, immediately, without recourse, if you ever approach violation of one of the terms. It's completely fair to choose to do business with someone else and it has nothing to do with what they want it to be. It has to do with return on your efforts. Nobody does anything for others at their own long-term detriment.

The fact of the matter is that you won't always get your way. We enter into contracts because they are mutually agreeable arrangements between entities. When one or more parties changes the terms, it's as if a new contract ensues, and the parties are free to reject or accept them if they are still agreeable. It is, however, not usually agreeable to continue to play a game when you know all of the bad cards have your name on them and none of the good ones. Who would play a game like that?

Politicians are famous for this kind of trick. They will sacrifice something they like and then say they're letting you have your way. Nevermind that they haven't fulfilled any of your terms, requests, or demands. The fact of the matter is they didn't get 100% of what they wanted, and so that means you got your way. Meanwhile, none of the items on your wishlist have even been mentioned let alone addressed. They are always by this technique able to paint themselves as the compromiser, the victim, and the reasonable one, when there's nothing reasonable at all about 'only' getting 95% of what you want when you have given the other party 0% of the terms for which they signed onto the contract or discussion.

Sometimes people are not interested in playing by the rules. Whether in politics, relationships, or in business, some people set rules not because they intend to follow them but because they know you do. They know they can count on you to deliver without them having to lift a finger and that then they can take that and run. It's made me somewhat gun shy. Even if you haven't burnt me before, I have been burned, and so I am cautious until you prove yourself, and although I may give you enough rope to get the job started, it's also enough with which to hang yourself. Someone in graduate school published data I voluntarily shared with him as his own. Women do frequently change the rules on me without warning and without my being able to add input. If you're not interested in abiding by even the rules you set yourself for yourself, don't be surprised if I decide not to play. It's not arrogant. It's not selfish. It's not because I am an irrational white male. It's perfectly normal and justifiable behavior that has governed contracts and long-term human interactions since the dawn of written history.

Some people don't like the rules. They like to win. Despite my sister's boyfriend's beginner's luck, I will continue to play board games with my sister because I know rules matter to her.