{"id":3359,"date":"2013-02-21T14:05:57","date_gmt":"2013-02-21T21:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/elbertcounty.net\/blog\/2013\/02\/21\/board-games\/"},"modified":"2013-02-22T14:56:15","modified_gmt":"2013-02-22T21:56:15","slug":"board-games","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/elbertcounty.net\/blog\/2013\/02\/board-games\/","title":{"rendered":"Board Games"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Board Game<\/a><\/p>\n

Oops. . .that was the Borg Game.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Theory:<\/p>\n

Power structures create gaming constructs that enable winners to impose their will upon losers.\u00a0 Often this involves the transfer of wealth and power from losers through a quasi-judicial process.<\/p>\n

Constitutional and Common Law principles get used in a manner that creates a manipulable game domain where winners and losers sort out according to rules of the game.\u00a0 So long as rules and judgments follow objective rules of law and ethics, justice may be served.<\/p>\n

But when rules and judgments become self-referential to the game\u2019s purpose, the game departs from the pursuit of objective justice and turns toward satisfying its\u2019 own pre-determined objectives.\u00a0 When this happens, outsiders see a veneer of legitimate justice, while savvy players and empowered game operators prey upon the less powerful with impunity.<\/p>\n

The existence of self-referential, non-objective rules, in a separate domain, suggest the existence of a game.<\/p>\n

Games would not exist unless they served the ostensible purpose of their subject, a purpose we can assume is not served absent the game.\u00a0 Therefore, games tilt the playing field in a way it would not otherwise tilt.\u00a0 In other words, games serve the interests of a minority without requiring the minority to openly persuade the majority.<\/p>\n

Reconsider the Borg<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Analysis for each game:<\/p>\n

Construction:<\/p>\n