Would you participate in a rigged game? | INFJ Forum

Would you participate in a rigged game?

Lark

Rothchildian Agent
May 9, 2011
2,220
127
245
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
9
Would you participate in a rigged game, one you could not win?

Would you if you knew it was a rigged game from the outset? Why? Why not?

Would you if you had not known at the outset but had discovered before its conclusion, at the eleventh hour, would you continue to participate? Why? Why not?
 
NO. If rigged it is not a game, it is something else.
 
Like dungeons and dragons? There is no winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lark
I suppose I was thinking of a contest, this came to me while I was compelled to watch the movie Step Up 5 lately, it features a dance contest which has been engineered for a particular outcome, its a sweetness and light story so they prevail against the odds but I thought what if they hadnt? What if the movie wasnt shrinking from the reality?

The board game monopoly was originally meant to illustrate the unfairness of capitalism, competitions have winners and losers and if you entered a game of monopoly when most people are half way through or winning already its pretty hopeless. Some of the uber capitalists have tried to revise the rules and the game play of that particular game to demonstrate their own theories about different kinds of firms having advantages and disadvantages and competition surviving as a regulatory working principle, that its not a zero sum game like Risk in other words. The earlier gameplay seems more honest and realistic but I know even hasbro have reinvented and revisioned monopoly in untold ways.

Anyway, the point is that there's some games which are rigged, including vital social games, usually there's no choice or little choice involved in those as you cant magically drop out of the economy and expect to receive its benefits at the same time, but provided you had the liberty presupposed in the OP would you take part? Can you or would you attempt to shame the winners by such a great performance of playing the game? Is the dutiful carrying out of the task of playing sufficient reward for taking part?
 
So many of the games we play are rigged- voting in politics, economics, monetary value, wars, social situations, cultural life, world affairs.

Sometimes we are enrolled into these rigged games from birth, other times, we are more or less coerced into joining them, with the illusion of feedom and choice.

Some people like to say 'you have to play the game to change the game'. I think thats stupid. Fuck the game and play your your own, your rules, your terms. No need to destroy the old game, take what you need from it, ignore it, play your game parallel.

There are a lot of people that have 'magically dropped' out. We are human, we need air, water, food, shelter, freedom, friendship and Love. We dont need cities and systems of authority and rule unless we have been deluded into believing that. If people think they need the rigged game, they will stay in it. If they dont like the game and realise they dont need it, they will eventually create and play another one.

...but monopoly...that is actually one of my favourite games. I love games where your toss the dice and see where you land...it is very exciting. I have started playing the game halfway before, by taking other peoples place that were losing and playing for them. I play monopoly for my own goals, and it can be very annoying for some people. My aim is to 'monopolise' the board by ensuring everyone is in an equal position, where the money flows and the game is technically stalemated- no one can win or lose. Yes i know, this is probably stupid, and still controlling, but...yes, i enjoy it for my own reasons.

This is like using the same game board to play a different game. Because people are so busy playing their own game, they dont really notice that you are not playing their game. They may believe that you are stupid and dont know the rules.

Sometimes people are so busy trying to prove they are competent in knowing and conforming to the rules and to other peoples' expectations that they may not even understand they are playing a rigged game.

What im trying to say is....if the game is rigged....forget what other people are doing, what their rules are, forget the game they are playing. It doesnt matter if the game is good or bad, if people are cheating, who's winning, who's losing. The game only exists, the rules only exists, because people have accepted it. If you dont agree with the rules, dont accept them. Ignore them, stop giving the 'rules' authority and power by buying into them and basing your life around either your blind obedience or you resentment towards them. If you 'rebel' against something, that means that you are still giving the object of your rebellion power. You are still playing that game.
If you decide who dont want to particpate in the game, all is not lost. You can always play a different game on your own terms, parallel to theirs.
 
Depends on the game. I don't think winning is everything.

Also in my experience it's not that easy to make a game actually unwinable because there's almost always some way to abuse something and game the game. Unless it's very simplified and limited. e.g. some roguelikes appear to have unwinable states to one who doesn't have meta knowledge about non intuitive or esoteric relationships between game items and abilities.

Edit:
Also some older video games never had a winning condition. You played until you give up. For some games such as Pac-Man a 'winning condition' was invented through playing so long that the game data overflows and crashes the machine.
 
[video=youtube;voL1MEcsBsI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voL1MEcsBsI[/video]
 
[video=dailymotion;xr6xgl]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr6xgl_akagi-13_fun[/video]
 
So many of the games we play are rigged- voting in politics, economics, monetary value, wars, social situations, cultural life, world affairs.

Sometimes we are enrolled into these rigged games from birth, other times, we are more or less coerced into joining them, with the illusion of feedom and choice.

Some people like to say 'you have to play the game to change the game'. I think thats stupid. Fuck the game and play your your own, your rules, your terms. No need to destroy the old game, take what you need from it, ignore it, play your game parallel.

There are a lot of people that have 'magically dropped' out. We are human, we need air, water, food, shelter, freedom, friendship and Love. We dont need cities and systems of authority and rule unless we have been deluded into believing that. If people think they need the rigged game, they will stay in it. If they dont like the game and realise they dont need it, they will eventually create and play another one.

...but monopoly...that is actually one of my favourite games. I love games where your toss the dice and see where you land...it is very exciting. I have started playing the game halfway before, by taking other peoples place that were losing and playing for them. I play monopoly for my own goals, and it can be very annoying for some people. My aim is to 'monopolise' the board by ensuring everyone is in an equal position, where the money flows and the game is technically stalemated- no one can win or lose. Yes i know, this is probably stupid, and still controlling, but...yes, i enjoy it for my own reasons.

This is like using the same game board to play a different game. Because people are so busy playing their own game, they dont really notice that you are not playing their game. They may believe that you are stupid and dont know the rules.

Sometimes people are so busy trying to prove they are competent in knowing and conforming to the rules and to other peoples' expectations that they may not even understand they are playing a rigged game.

What im trying to say is....if the game is rigged....forget what other people are doing, what their rules are, forget the game they are playing. It doesnt matter if the game is good or bad, if people are cheating, who's winning, who's losing. The game only exists, the rules only exists, because people have accepted it. If you dont agree with the rules, dont accept them. Ignore them, stop giving the 'rules' authority and power by buying into them and basing your life around either your blind obedience or you resentment towards them. If you 'rebel' against something, that means that you are still giving the object of your rebellion power. You are still playing that game.
If you decide who dont want to particpate in the game, all is not lost. You can always play a different game on your own terms, parallel to theirs.

Yeah this

Society IS rigged

Doesn't mean people can't play their own game
 
Is this thread about games or society?

It seems to me to be a crass analogy that wasn't suggested in the first place, later inserted, and is now being distorted.

Wittgenstein rejects a variety of ways of thinking about what the meaning of a word is, or how meanings can be identified. He shows how, in each case, the meaning of the word presupposes our ability to use it. He first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: to come up with a definition of the word "game". While this may at first seem a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word "game". Any definition which focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition which focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word "game" which focuses on rules will fall on similar difficulties.

The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that we don't have a definition, and we don't need one, because even without the definition, we use the word successfully. Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game. The German word for "game", "Spiele/Spiel", has a different sense than in English; the meaning of "Spiele" also extends to the concept of "play" and "playing." This German sense of the word may help readers better understand Wittgenstein's context in the remarks regarding games.
 
Who feels compelled to watch any of the step up movies? I think that's what the real issue of discussion should be! ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, I see it as a way to challenge, test myself, and learn. There's nothing like the satisfaction from winning a rigged game, to me.
 
we all play a rigged game, its called life

everybody dies

Ah see, now this is the direction I'd hoped this discussion would go ;)
 
Who feels compelled to watch any of the step up movies? I think that's what the real issue of discussion should be! ;)

Ha! It was a work thing and interesting in a sort of anthropological mission kind of way.
 
Yes, I see it as a way to challenge, test myself, and learn. There's nothing like the satisfaction from winning a rigged game, to me.

That I can totally agree with, when you outfox the riggers but what if it is a forgone conclusion and you cant win or prevail against the odds.

I could really contrast the eleventh hour "win/happily ever after" ending of Step Up with the movie Calvary which I watched last night, not trying to spoil either but the later is one of the sorts of movies which I've heard described as "f**k you' movies, appaarently usual to asian cinema, in which the cheering up or enjoyment of the audience in a uplifting sense may not be the object of the presentation.