autilio@phoenix.UUCP (Pat Autilio) (11/20/85)
MONOPOLY
Argument Proceedings
________________________________________________________________
November, 1985 A Publication devoted to discussion of Vol.1 No.2
the ruler, conventions and strategies of
________________________________________________________________
Welcome To Issue 2
Hello again, MONOPOLY fans. Welcome to this second edition
of the MONOPOLY Argument Proceedings (MAP). The first issue
found its way to a good number of people (with the help of
the USENET computer network). As a result, I received many
responses offering new arguments, praise and constructive
criticism. With the first issue, I allowed six weeks between
the distribution and the deadline for responses. I will try
to continue that practice to allow for thorough
consideration of the issues involved without letting it
slide for too long.
The main order of business in this issue is to better
clarify the primary goals of MAP and to establish a solid
basis for future discussions. Also, in this issue are
updates of the arguments from the first issue, ``Dealing
With Bankruptcy'' and ``Showing Your Money'', the
introduction of two new arguments, ``Holding the Dice'' and
``Loaning Money'' and an new section for answering questions
and responding to comments from readers. Readers are
encouraged to respond to any or all sections of this
newsletter as well as to submit pieces of their own for
inclusion in future issues. - Pat Autilio
The Goals of MAP
Rules, Implied Rules
and Conventions
in MONOPOLY
One of the strongest criticisms brought against the first
edition of MAP was raised by Bill Dippert of Portland, OR:
``I have been playing MONOPOLY since I was about 8 (37
years ago) and still play it. Now is not the time for
newcomers to start changing the time honored rules!
...I think your idea is a great one, but not too
original. I am sure that the various MONOPOLY
organizations already publish similar papers.''
This is a valid concern and one which I hope to address
fully in this section.
Playing By The Rules
First it is important to say that I agree completely with
Bill on the following point: The rules to MONOPOLY may not
be changed without creating another game entirely. MONOPOLY
is defined solely and completely by the rules included with
the game. Therefore if you change the rules you have in so
doing destroyed the MONOPOLYness of the game. There are
certainly an infinite number of interesting variations of
MONOPOLY that may be devised by altering the rules but that
is simply beyond the intention of this publication. From the
point of view of MAP, the rules of MONOPOLY are absolutely
immutable.
So What Are We Arguing About?
If we don't intend to change the rules through MAP then
what's to argue about? As anyone who has ever played
MONOPOLY for keeps knows, there is plenty to argue about.
There are situations that arise, during the course of nearly
every game, where the intent of the rules is unclear in that
situation or where no applicable rule may be found. This
inevitably leads to discussions which, however stimulating
they may be, are disruptive to the game at hand.
What is the best procedure for settling these disputes?
Certainly, we are not the first people to ever consider a
resolution to these questions nor is this publication the
first of its kind. Until now, I have been relatively
unsuccessful in tracking down information about other
people's efforts in this direction. If any of MAP's readers
can offer some guidance it would be appreciated. Below are
summarized my efforts to date.
Parker Brothers
Correspondence with Parker Brothers (the publishers of
MONOPOLY) has proven to be largely unsatisfying. On one
occasion I mailed them some questions and never
received a reply. On another occasion I was sent the
Official Tournament Packet which gives everything one
needs to through your own MONOPOLY tournament. Included
with the packet were a few ``clarifications'' of rules,
most of which were trivial, a few actually made the
rules less clear. In addition, the tournament packet
presented evidence that there is no extended or
clarified set of rules for tournament play. If a
dispute arises during the course of a tournament, a
specially appointed referee has the power to make a
ruling based solely on the standard rules and his best
judgement. So even in a tournament setting there is no
notion of stare decisis (i.e. There is no reliance on
previous rulings.) nor does there seem to be one body
within Parker Brothers to serve as Supreme Court for
disputes.
Other Monopoly Organizations
There are several organizations in the US devoted to
interpreting and clarifying the rules of Monopoly.
There is the USMA (United States Monopoly Association)
and the Ivy League Real Estate Trading Game
Association. I don't know how active either of these
organizations is but I would certainly be delighted to
get in touch with them.
At best, these organizations can only offer us
guidelines for our efforts. Since we have not submitted
to their jurisdiction nor been convinced that it is
desirable to do so, we need not feel constrained to
abide by their precedents.
Books
I have come across two books devoted to discussing
MONOPOLY. There is ``The MONOPOLY Book'' by Maxine
Brady (ISBN 0-679-20316-8) and also ``1000 Ways to Win
MONOPOLY Games'' by Jay Walker and Jeff Lehman (1975
Dell). These books both provide insight to the rules
and strategies of the game. The latter is particularly
good at suggesting loony ways to raise money when
you're desperate. It was written by two national
tournament champions. The information in ``The MONOPOLY
Book'' should be taken with a grain of salt in that
some of Brady's ``rules clarifications'' are actually
contrary to the rules themselves. Neither book's
presentation of the rules is completely satisfying but
they make excellent reading nonetheless.
Even if we were to come in possession of a satisfying
extended set of rules for MONOPOLY that it would still be a
lot of fun to argue about its validity. That rule set would
simply provide a better windmill towards which to direct our
jousts. It would in no way diminish the pure joy of
discussion that MONOPOLY engenders.
So in that light I will continue by clarifying the two
particular things we're trying to accomplish here, (1)
interpreting the rules and (2) suggesting conventions.
Interpreting The Rules
The rules as written provide significant latitude for
interpretation in many areas. One goal is to take note of
situations that occur during game play and try to find the
best interpretation of the rules as they apply to that
situation. Most situations may be handled from the rules
directly (with possibly a little help from Black's Law
dictionary). When there is more than one plausible
interpretation of a rule, it is useful to choose the
interpretation that is most in keeping with the spirit of
the game. (See argument #1 of this issue)
Occasionally, it is necessary to derive rules from the
existing ones (See Argument #3 this issue). There is nothing
wrong with the idea of deriving rules from other rules as
long as a logical progression can be shown between them.
Finally, there are situations that occur to which no
MONOPOLY rules apply. Everyone plays MONOPOLY following
rules that have no basis in the official printed rules.
Typically we are not aware that these conventions are
unsupported by the official rules. Players agree implicitly
or explicitly to play by certain conventions that they
believe improve the game in some way.
Strictly speaking there is no reason why any of these
conventions must be adopted. Nonetheless there are areas
where the official rules do not apply and conventions can be
defined that make the game run more smoothly.
Some conventions are accepted as being part of any social
human interaction. For example, it is not nice to reach
across the table and rip your opponent's shirt. Others are
encountered through the experience of playing many board
games including MONOPOLY. An example of this is agreeing
that a dice roll is valid only if the dice land flatly on
the playing surface. There are probably hundreds of such
conventions. It would be foolish to try to enumerate them
all. However, there are many conventions that have not
gained universal acceptance but exist in variations
throughout the world of MONOPOLY players. These conventions
lead to arguments and these are the ones that we are
interested in discussing and providing with some more
definition.
It must be remembered that these conventions have no basis
in the rules and hence are changing the game in some way
however slightly. It is therefore necessary for all players
to agree on the use of any conventions before play begins.
The discussion of Argument #2 in this issue gives a good
illustration of the interaction between rules and
conventions.
You should also decide if you want to treat conventions as
having the full weight as rules. That is, if a player
``breaks'' a convention is he then cheating or is he within
his rights and merely a sleazeball?
Conclusion
We are not here to change the rules of MONOPOLY but to
clarify them. This means interpreting the rules as best we
can and, when more than one valid interpretation exists
suggesting the best one. When appropriate, MAP will also
suggest conventions that will hopefully make the game run
more smoothly without changing the flavor of the game in any
way. Any conventions that are used during a game must be
agreed upon by all players before the game begins.
Tournament News
The world MONOPOLY championship was held in September in New
York and Atlantic City. The winner was Jason Bunn of Great
Britain. In the championship game Bunn managed to acquire
the violet monopoly early on. The other players
(representing Austria, Japan, Peru and Australia) struggled
to gain footholds of their own but each had the misfortune
of repeatedly landing on Bunn's violets. The victor was
awarded $15,140 (the amount of money in a standard MONOPOLY
set).
Argument #1 - UPDATE
Dealing with Bankruptcy
As you may remember from the first issue this argument was
concerned with determining precisely when a player has to
retire from the game given that he is faced with a larger
rent than he can pay. The principle rule involved here is
as follows:
A player is bankrupt when he owes more than he can pay
either to another player or to the bank. If his debt is
to another player, he must turn over to that player all
that he has of value and retire from the game.
Nearly everyone who responded had strong feelings on this
question. In this writer's opinion there are two equally
valid interpretations of the above rule. These are stated
below. The first is taken from the last issue (with some
clarification) and the second was not in the last issue but
was suggested by several people.
Option B:
A player is bankrupt when he owes more than he can pay
either to another player or to the bank. As soon as he
is asked for the rent, if his total assets are less
than the amount asked for, he must turn over all he has
of value and retire from the game.
Option D:
A player is bankrupt when he owes more than he can pay
either to another player or to the bank. As soon as he
is asked for the rent, if his total assets are less
than the amount asked for, he may try to negotiate one
or more deals to raise the capital. If, as a result of
these transactions, the player raises enough money to
stay in the game, he may do so. If he cannot raise the
money then none of those deals may be made and he must
turn over all he had of value when asked for the rent
and retire from the game.
To see that either interpretation is valid under the rules,
one must consider that phrase owes more than he can pay.
Other ways to say this are owes more than he is able to pay
or hasn't the means to pay what he owes.
Ed Clough of Boston, MA argues vehemently that Option B is
the only possible interpretation:
[When asked for the rent] any indebted player must be
able to first make payment out of cash on hand and/or
immediate assets...If he is unable to liquidate the
debt he cannot trade property to raise cash because he
would be trading property he no longer owns [emphasis
his].
However, in my view, it is equally acceptable to say that if
the player has enough of value to the other players so he
can raise the capital to pay the rent and stay in the game,
then he does have the means, he is able to pay. He is not
bankrupt until he has explored this possibility as well.
So, we are left with the problem of selecting one
interpretation which best adheres to the spirit of the game.
I would favor option B for the following reasons:
o Any player that finds himself in this situation is
probably going to be leaving the game shortly anyway.
Option B helps to move things along.
o Option D and similar interpretations always allow
opportunities for the indebted player to sell
properties at ridiculously low prices to favor another
player. Option B removes some of the temptation to do
something like that.
Whichever option you choose to use, make sure that those you
are playing with agree with you before the game begins.
Proposed Interpretation #1:
A player is bankrupt when he owes more than he can pay
either to another player or to the bank. As soon as he
is asked for the rent, if his total assets are less
than the amount asked for, he must turn over all he has
of value and retire from the game.
If a player lands on a space that causes him to go
bankrupt to the bank, he is bankrupt as soon as he
lands on that space.
Argument #2 - UPDATE
Showing Your Money
There seems to be something of a consensus on this issue.
Everyone agrees that the rules say nothing about where you
can your money. Also, the rules are equally silent
regarding any disclosure of a player's assets. Therefore
you can keep your money wherever you please and you are not
obliged to reveal its amount to another player.
Proposed Interpretation #2 - Showing Your Money:
<no rule (zippo)>
There are useful conventions that may be adopted at the
beginning of the game by mutual agreement among the players.
Proposed Convention #2:
A player's money must be kept on the playing area and
in sight of other players at all times. Each
denomination must be kept in an individual pile. A
player may not be asked to disclose its amount.
Where the playing area is limited in size the following
convention may be more practical.
Proposed Convention #2B:
A player's money must be kept on the playing area and
in sight of other players at all times. Each
denomination must be kept in an individual pile. A
player may not be asked to disclose its amount.
Argument #3
Holding the Dice
Holding the dice refers to the practice of one player
requesting another to refrain from taking his turn while the
requesting player performs some transaction. There is no
rule that directly applies to the practice of holding the
dice. There are no rules regarding when transactions may
take place except the following:
[A] player may buy and erect at any time as many houses
as his judgement and financial standing will allow.
[emphasis mine]
The only way to make such a transaction possible at any time
is to have some notion of halting play in order to allow the
transaction to take place. The only way of halting play is
the hold the dice. This leads to the following:
Proposed Interpretation #3:
Any player at any time during the game may request that
the dice be held for a reasonable period of time.
This is a derived rule as discussed earlier.
Argument #4
Loaning Money
In MONOPOLY, there are fine distinctions that can be drawn
between:
o paying ``a fair price'' for something,
o paying much more for something than it's worth,
o giving someone money and
o loaning someone money.
The relevant rule states:
No player may borrow from or lend money to another
player.
Strictly speaking this rule only applies to loaning money
which may be defined as: ``giving someone money upon
agreement to repay it with or without interest''. What if
some player wants to give another player money with no
agreement to repay? Do we need to be concerned over this
apparent loophole?? I think not. If one player is
deliberately giving money to another player, that player is
violating the object of game, that is, he is not playing to
win. If that player is violating the object of the game, he
is no longer playing MONOPOLY but some other game that you
probably don't want to be a part of and he should be advised
of this fact.
We are beginning to get into the issue of MONOPOLY ethics
and so I will now put in a plug for the next issue of MAP
which will include a special article by a guest contributor
entitled ``MONOPOLY and Virtue''. I guarantee it will cause
some good arguments!
Letters, Questions & Answers
``...Several years back I did a simulation (on a desk
calculator, this being before personal computers existed) of
monopoly landing frequencies with a twist.The usual method
is to run for a very long time and come up with stable
landing frequencies that correspond to the transition
probabilities of the Markov Process that underlies the game.
However, I ran short games (300 rolls and 1000 rolls)to
generate a distribution of how many times a property is
landed on during a game. These distributions are quite
broad, indicating that there is a significant luck element
in any one game no matter what properties are owned. It does
no good to own the Reds, say, if in that particular game the
total number of Red landings is quite small relative to the
``expected'' long term landing frequency.
``To this end, the local group of Monopoly players we have
has come up with a scoring by point system. The winner of a
game gets 10 points, and second place (last person
eliminated)gets 7. The rest get 3, 1, 0, 0, ... . This
method gives the most to the winner, but good points to
second place (who is very often second only because of luck)
with the rest tailing off quickly. We keep a running average
over the last 20 games a player has participated in. The
best player averages about 7 points. This is very difficult
to do, especially against experienced opposition.
``Here's an issue. Many people play with all sorts of
complicated deals. In many of these, money can change hands
from player to player (example, sharing rents on a co-owned
monopoly). We totally disallow this. The rule we use is that
all transactions must be completed at the time of the deal
and no future considerations are allowed. It is also
specifically forbidden to ``cheat'' by selling or trading
one or more items back and forth repeatedly (and the
competition director decides). Thus we have no leasing,
shared monopolies, buying other peoples rights to buy
properties by cash up front, etc, etc. This removes 99% of
the arguments from the game. Monopoly then settles down to
an initial land rush, then at some point a major trading
session (this normally occurs when some subset of the
players control the cards of monopolies equal to the number
of the dealing players), and a build and rape stage as the
weak are first eaten and then the strong kill each other off
at the end. The fun then lies in the trading skill and
ability to spot a clever deal. It is still exciting, fun,
and much less of a hassle.'' - Matthew Buynoski
``...While I agree with you that it is not "just a game of
chance", it is just a game. I like the game because it does
require the active use of one's mind. I welcome the
opportunity to play the game with intelligently playful
people.
``My primary interest in the game is in its strategies
toward winning.
``I am not interested in detailed debates over rules and
conventions. These are definitely necessary, but - in this
context - I choose to leave that work to the games
creator(s).'' - Dennis Baldwin, Glastonbury, CT
Three questions from Frans Meulenbroks:
Incarceration
Q: ``<long question concerning the mechanics of going to
jail>''
A: You can go to jail in one of three ways, by picking a
``Go to jail'' card, by landing on the ``Go to jail'' space
or by rolling three doubles in a row. Whichever way you wind
up there, your turn ends at that moment. If you just rolled
doubles, their effect is lost.
Once you are in jail, you may spend up to three turns there.
Any time before your turn arrives you may elect to pay $50
and be ``Just Visiting''. If you choose to stay in jail you
must roll the dice when you turn arrives. If at that time
you roll doubles, you move the number of spaces indicated on
the dice, do what has to be done and your turn ends (without
paying $50). You don't get another turn from having rolled
these doubles. If you don't roll doubles and it is your
first or second turn in jail, you do nothing and your turn
ends. If it is your third turn in jail then you move the
number shown on the dice and pay $50. Clear?
Doing Things While Moving Your Token
Q: ``...what happens if I roll the dice, and before moving
figure out where I'm going to land, and if I don't like the
spot, quickly sell my property before moving?''
A: In any board game I've ever played and surely in
MONOPOLY, rolling the dice and moving the token to a new
space on the board are considered a single, indivisible
transaction. Otherwise, another player may decide to build
some more houses while you're moving down the board!
Bankruptcy to the Bank
Q: ``What if you go bankrupt on luxury or income tax...Does
the bank get your property?''
A: Yes and all property is immediately auctioned off to the
highest bidder.
There were other interesting letters which I will try to
publish in the next issue.
Responses to MAP #2
Send all responses to the address given below no later than
January 1, 1986.
Pat Autilio
AT&T Information Systems
307 Middletown/Lincroft Rd.
Lincroft, NJ, 07738
[ihnp4!]phoenix!autilio
--
Pat Autilio
AT&T Information Systems
307 Middletown/Lincroft Rd.
Lincroft, NJ, 07738
phoenix!autilio
LZ 3F-310 x3547