The Chairman's Game

Explored Melbourne CBD tonight with Mike, and found all these little hidden places (cafes, restaurants, pubs) in these little narrow alleys. Didn't end up rediscovering the pub with the limericks on the wall that we stumbled across one time when half-drunk. In particular, we saw no signs of The Croft Institute, which as I recall was situated at the end of a blind alley, through about 100 metres of turns and corners in unlit and cardboard cluttered alley. But it's truly amazing how some of these places are known to others, and can become so popular that they're packed and overflow onto the street.

A lot of the Chairman's game was played during my trip in Adelaide. It seems to me that there are 2 phases to the game - one, when people are learning about the basic rules, and the 2nd where people start pondering about player produced rules. And it seems to me that it is when all players are up to this second stage and start on even territory, that things become more interesting.

And it was during these sessions that I first noticed that a person's personality might possibly start to show in the way they play and interact. One of the problems that can arise during gameplay is 2 conflicting rules that people make up. To make it worse, each person does not know what the others' is, nor which specific details they interact with and how they are worded. The other problem is that sometimes there may be mistakes in how a person has put their rule, and questions of their validity may be called upon. Thus conflicts, debates, and full-out arguments have arisen.

Some will, with their very first reaction, assume that their interpretation of someone else's rule is correct, and either stop game play entirely sitting there with an incredulous look on their face, or accuse the maker of the rule of making a mistake (either in being consistent with their own rule, or their rule being legal). Others might outrightly say that 'no', something is incorrect according them, and won't back down any time, and refuse to be corrected even with arguments and reasoning to the contrary. Some may break rules and then correct themselves, incorrectly, at the last minute, but so often so that one feels guilty penalising them all the time - yet going to the stage where one also questions having the rule there in the first place if no-one is going to enforce it. And others are perfect gentlemen, who play by the rules, take their own penalty cards in their own stride, and cause havoc and mayhem with relatively simple rules.

I of course would like to describe myself with this last sentence, but it is not the case. I found myself quite consistently with my emotions boiling up, irritation by my side and even anger not far under the lid. Most of the time it would be over disputes over my own rules, and which I felt I should not back down from (which naturally most of the time I was right about, dammit). But on the other hand, I kept in mind that in a way I was the unofficial host of the game, and so for the interests of keeping the game running (and our friendships intact), I found that I would postpone the argument to a later stage where some of the rules may become more apparent to all. The most beneficial thing for me by playing the game, apart from enjoyment value in watching other people suffer under my tyranny, was to observe my own reactions, and in addition to this to see if I could modulate the natural progression of my feelings. And I found, to an extent, I could, which I felt happy about. I have a feeling that tolerating the errors of others (and my own) will be a skill I'll need in the future.