Stuart 
I haven't played Monopoly for many years now. The last game was with three housemates at university. One housemate was winning and really enjoying his triumph over the rest of us. So I suggested to my other two housemates that we form a cooperative. We would let each other off rents on our properties. The standards rents would apply to anyone not in the coop. And you could leave the coop if you wanted. None of this is forbidden in the rules of Monopoly because it has little market regulation.
Within a remarkably short space of time the monopolist had lost his dominance and the rest of us had flourished. He went bankrupt and the rest of us agreed to end the game as joint victors. I felt as though we perhaps played it more to the spirit of the original game that Monopoly had been derived from and found a non-monopolist solution.
A few years ago I shared this story on Twitter and then had angry libertarian men complain that I'd cheated and had actually made a cartel, not a cooperative. They weren't happy that I pointed out that no rules had been broken. In fact it was the lack of market regulation in Monopoly that allowed us to do what we did. Plus we did it fully openly and the fourth player was able to join our coop if he'd wanted.
I still don't agree that we were a cartel as there was no secrecy, deceit, or defrauding going on. We were very open about forgiving rent and doing better deals within the coop than the 'official' prices outside the coop. Anyway it was funny to see libertarian men be unhappy about something happening due to very limited market regulation (no rules saying you couldn't discount rent or undercut the guide prices).
Although Monopoly is so often presented/framed as an individualistic game of capitalist dominance, it doesn't actually have to be played like that. The system might strongly encourage that but the players can behave differently. A better way is possible.
It did teach me that a bunch of libertarian men are all in favour of lower regulation until you use that lack of regulation to behave cooperatively to help each other.
I've had a lot of (I get the impression, American) people tell me I'm wrong about the rules and that we weren't allowed to do what I said. I appreciate that many of those that need to tell me I'm wrong are unlikely to read this far but it may be helpful to check the rules of the Waddingtons edition that was the "genuine" version in the UK. It doesn't mean you are wrong about your rules but you aren't correct about the "official" rules of the game we were playing.
Our genuine UK edition (from the 80s but seems similar to this 70s version) explicitly had a rule about not being able to collect rent if the property owner hadn't asked for it before the next dice roll. At no point does it tell you you can't make gifts. It tells you you can't make loans. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6_HeeUb95K4/Uj296BllHuI/AAAAAAAAGCs/Eb-aYsMRFdw/s1600/SIDE+1.jpg
Not that actual evidence of the rules we were playing with (here's side 2 of that Waddington edition http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TVoDpsHD_aM/Uj296i5i69I/AAAAAAAAGCo/RoBGC0yo4nI/s1600/SIDE+2.jpg) ever mattered to those people. They just needed to tell me I was wrong because they felt I was wrong.
It is hard because so many of us fall into this https://xkcd.com/386/ even if we've not bothered to check or even allow for not fully understanding a situation first.
Sentient Mortal
Dogzilla
Tom Bellin 
@slowe I think you found a loophole on the no rents thing, but your gifts probably violated the spirit of the "no loans" rule.
I think Monopoly is a good game for teaching kids that wealth is luck and luck is capricious.
@slowe It is not a good game for teaching about business, entrepreneurs, or budgeting. It's also in my experience, rife with cheating. Like 90% of my no-parent-supervision games involved people stealing from the bank or making up rules.
FeralRobots@slowe
They are wrong. You are totally allowed to do what you did, even according to baseline rules, which state that players can negotiate.
& you are also right in the deeper sense that a group of people playing a board game are allowed to change the rules to said board game if those rules aren't working for them.
@FeralRobots We weren't even using custom rules; we were using the official Warringtons rules that came with our edition. It is as if people think the fourth housemate didn't double check the rules we had.
XaiaX ̆̈@slowe I wonder how many of them play with the near-universal (and terrible) house rule of turning Free Parking into a lottery.
Yiming Wu ✅ Use OurPaint
SocialistStan@slowe They just want the rich to be the regulators, that's why I stopped being a libertarian and started being an anarchist.
Brendan Jones@SocialistStan @slowe you can still be libertarian, just be left-libertarian. It's social anarchism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
Kind of annoying that the US usage of the word has warped it to mean right-libertarianism by default. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Definition
Wally Slowik
Relee the Squirrel@slowe I think that makes sense, sorta. If I was convinced I had to kill people to live, and actually killed people, only to find out that was a lie? I'd have a really hard time accepting it, and might not. I might try to justify it, even. People are falible, and that's a pretty extreme situation.
Not all Libertarians have a lot of blood on their hands, but they did kinda buy into that idea hard and it's embarassing to be wrong. Potentially dangerous, too, these days.
E.M. Faulds / Beth@slowe A friend of mine pointed out that they had to include "$200 for passing go" because the game wouldn't work without it. So Monopoly has Universal Basic Income built in. 💀
Riley S. Faelan
Jessica Stewart
Hackhörnchen@slowe I started that once.
We were four players and one of them had rushed to build a hotel on the cheapest streets, the one you can get sent to by drawing a card. I had put all my money towards the most expensive streets and didn't want to get booted out of the game.
So I offered a deal to not pay rent on the cheapest streets in exchange for them not paying rent on the most expensive streets.
They agreed. The others saw how we thrived and tried to team up, too. Too late though, we won.
We were four players and one of them had rushed to build a hotel on the cheapest streets, the one you can get sent to by drawing a card. I had put all my money towards the most expensive streets and didn't want to get booted out of the game.
So I offered a deal to not pay rent on the cheapest streets in exchange for them not paying rent on the most expensive streets.
They agreed. The others saw how we thrived and tried to team up, too. Too late though, we won.
@slowe It didn't even need rules for all the streets. We paid regular rent on all other properties. That one small deal already changed the whole game.
I really recommend trying it out. It might actually be a change that makes the game much more enjoyable. Phase one: Capitalist rampage, phase two: unionize and crush the dominating capitalist.
I really recommend trying it out. It might actually be a change that makes the game much more enjoyable. Phase one: Capitalist rampage, phase two: unionize and crush the dominating capitalist.
cliff1976@slowe There is a big backstory about that game; IIRC it was originally intended to be a warning for consumers about the power of monopolistic businesses and landlords. I remember from a podcast or maybe an audio book that a woman originally conceived of the game and then some guy ripped her off and had a big success with it. I'll try to find a reference for all of that.
lj·rk@cliff1976 @slowe Exactly, called "The Landlords Game", it's on Wikipedia
Golfhaus still uses emoji: ⛳🏠@slowe The history of Monopoly suggests that the games it was based on were developed to promote anti-capitalist ideas, specifically the private ownership of real estate.
Outeast@slowe the fact that there are people who will rage out about how a stranger they've never met played a game of monopoly with other people they've never met should help us put online outrage in context
mictter@slowe By not behaving like sociopaths you demostrated that it is a choice, not some kind of biological imperative. Well done!
@mictter Thanks.
Litzz11@slowe Their idea of the "free hand of the market" doing its "magic" is really just customers not buying from companies that behave badly or make bad stuff. BUT Libertarins also support anti-sunlight laws and decry "cancel culture" -- stuff that basically makes it harder to inform consumers about bad corporate behavior. So really, they just don't want to be regulated. They don't want you to know there's lead in the water AND they don't want to be told not to put lead in the water. Babies.
Wendy Nather
Robert DenbyI don't trust libertarianism. Any political movement that wants to do away with child labor laws, minimum wages and food safety regulations is announcing that they want a license to exploit people.
Brian Alberts@slowe my friends and I used to do this. Whatever the game and whoever was doing it, the co-op was always named Amalgamated Taft.
Cameron Purdy@slowe Libertarians are just Republicans who think that the Republican Party should be more cruel to "other people", while removing all restrictions and taxes from the self-proclaimed "libertarians". 🤦♂️
Rob needs sci-fi 🚀🛸@slowe “but the leopards aren’t supposed to eat *my* face!”
Infosec V'ger@slowe Scratch a libertarian, find someone who wants the freedom to put their boot on your neck.
Jaycie@slowe I absolutely adore how this is exactly how the true creator of the game would have wanted you to play.
Giles@slowe Completely unsurprisingly, there is a 99 Percent Invisible podcast about this. Also completely unsurprisingly, I am recommending it.
The Landlord’s Game - 99% Invisible
From rock-paper-scissors, to tennis, to Mario Kart, every game is a designed system and all games are grounded in the same design principles. One popular game in particular has a mixed reputation with game players and designers alike: Monopoly. Participants circle the board, buy property, build houses, collect money, draw cards and pay money when
whetstone@gilesdring this looks great, thank you for pointing it out!!
Cheeseness@slowe I'm sure others have mentioned this, but it strongly brings to mind that the original game Monopoly was based on was created to educate and spark discussion about exactly that kind of stuff.
I've not dug into the specifics of the rules much, but my understanding is that what we know today as "Monopoly" was the more or less the first half of the game, and the second half uses an alternative ruleset intended to be more anti-monopolist
@Cheeseness They have. :) But, yes, we were perhaps more exploring part of the purpose of Elizabeth Magie's original than the way people are usually encouraged to play it. I've definitely preferred games that are deliberately cooperative since then. I feel we sort of transcended Monopoly that day.
@slowe I think there's also something very empowering about tweaking rules to "find your own fun." Something that's a big part of Monopoly's heritage as well!
@slowe @Cheeseness absolutely, once you've played better games it's hard to go back, isn't it? I can't believe I wasted my youth on Monopoly and Risk - such miserable, vindictive games!
For anyone wanting to expand, try some games that are:
cooperative https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2023/cooperative-game,
semi-cooperative https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2820/semi-cooperative-game or
negotiation https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2915/negotiation
@slowe @Cheeseness Some notable favourites:
Sidereal Confluence https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/202426/sidereal-confluence
Diplomacy https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/483/diplomacy
Spirit Island https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/162886/spirit-island
Gloomhaven https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/174430/gloomhaven
Joe Philip@slowe
The original game was created by leftwing feminist, Elizabeth Magie, in the early 1900's as a "a practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences". (her words) You might have truly won the game in the spirit of its creator. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins
The original game was created by leftwing feminist, Elizabeth Magie, in the early 1900's as a "a practical demonstration of the present system of land-grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences". (her words) You might have truly won the game in the spirit of its creator. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins
Dan LK@slowe This almost makes me want to try and play Monopoly again. Hack it as a coop game? Heckin yeah.
Ben Rosengart@slowe IN A BOARD GAME 😂
Tips for Overcomers@slowe
That’s such a cool story! You do know why the game was originally invented, right?
Such a far cry from what I experienced. The winning player let us off rent and loaned us money for the sole purpose of extending our agony and their moment of glory.
Let’s all change the game, ok?
Who’s with me?
Gerty Steinblatt
Inken Paper 🇵🇸@slowe they called it a cartel because that's what they would do, and they would use the "co-op" label as a front. people who say things like that are telling on themselves.
@slowe Hello! Your thread was boosted to my timeline. I like the story, that's cool! Go Co-Ops! ^.^
There's something that always bugs me when I talk about Monopolies in business. Folks will argue that it's not a Monopoly because there's more than one company, or there's still another option. They don't get it.
Monopolies and Cartels are both types of Trusts, that's why it's Anti-Trust laws.
The other thing? Trusts are co-operative! It's owners pooling their resources for more power together.
Nemo@slowe
From the economic analysis point of view, you formed a cartel. The difference is not the secrecy, it's that you made it impossible to compete. Now cartels are good for their members (as you learnt). They're just terrible for customers (as your competitor saw).
(Cartels are organised in secret because they're illegal...)
@iinavpov Ours wasn't organised in secret. It was all open, inclusive and open to join/leave. And outside of the Cooperative Society there was no external difference in what other players experienced. They got charged the "standard" game rents. Nobody was defrauded, cheated etc. There are differences.
@iinavpov But I can see the need to present it as equivalent to a cartel. And people could also form secretive cartels in that edition of Monopoly if they so desired. There wasn't anything stopping that.
@slowe
Cartels are only organised in secret because they're illegal. They're even more effective when open :) your "cooperative" was set up to have price-setting market power (you just proved that rent controls - the standard rules! - don't work)
So, from an economist's perspective, you've set up a cartel. It would be a cooperative if there had been enough players that a number of competitive cooperatives existed.
@slowe
It's not presentation, you know, that's what it is. There are benefits to cartels: for example, they can agree to compete only on product quality, not salaries.
That's how the apprenticeships in Switzerland and Germany work.