[net.games.board] Monopoly Argument Proceedings #2

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