Obama Monopoly | Monopoly

George Husted

(Coldwarrior1984)

United States

Connecticut

Does the bank keep printing money and loaning it at zero interest to Officer Edgar Mallory to make sure that Jake the Jailbird gets cable TV? Does the bank bail out anyone that goes bankrupt? Do the owners of the railroads (Amtrak) get free money from the bank after the bank confiscates money from all the other players? Is there a tax on free parking? laugh

Posted Fri Feb 3, 2012 1:18 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

James King

(ShreveportLAGamer)

United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana

Capshun Kent wrote:

Rule changes consistent with national economic
policies in real estate and taxes. Bailouts, high taxes, new energy costs challenge players on how difficult it is to become rich.

Unfortunately, this variant rules set seems more like a work in progress than a fully developed, well thought-out set of new expansion ideas. Moreover, since this variant is supposed to glom off of our current reality that we face in terms of taxation, mortgages, rent, debt and tax loopholes -- many, if not most, of which are not attributable to policies set forth by the Obama administration alone -- this variant rules set would best satirize our current circumstances by exploiting all known economics factors currently in the news without regard for partisan origination.

Examples:

Rule #1 presumes that all players are rich soly because all players are required to receive only $100.00 when passing Go. In order to comply with the presumably satirical intent of this variant rules set, shouldn't there be some notion of class inequity (i.e. "Class Warfare") going on? For example, might not only players who have accumulated certain levels of wealth (in terms of money on hand) be taxed a certain percentage of the $200.00 they ordinarily collect by passing Go?

For example, based on the chart below, if one had $2000.00 on hand, he would be assessed 10% ($20.00) to go to the Bailout Fund.

Cash On Hand ..... % To Be Paid
$1000.00 .................. 5%
$2000.00 ................. 10%
$3000.00 ................. 15%
$4000.00 ................. 20%
$5000.00 ................. 25%
$6000.00 ................. 30%
$7000.00 ................. 25%
$8000.00 ................. 20%
$9000.00 ................. 15%
10,000.00 ................ 10%
$15,000.00 or more.... 5%

In that respect, it's necessary to set forth in the variant rules that every player has to publicly account for the amount of money he/she has on hand because it's open information.

What's more, there need to be rules that tell how one goes about applying for funds from the Bailout Fund to pay off a mortgage(s) on their property(ies). Likewise, that also implies that a new variant set of rules is needed for how mortgages would work that somewhat reflects how they do so today. That also sounds like it would have to be means-tested, that is, only applicants with a certain amount of on-hand cash would be able to apply for a Bailout for their mortgage in the first place.. That also implies that the mortgage interest rates would have to be fairly unrealistic. (I'm not going to brainstorm ideas for how this would work).

Rule #2 concerning Rent Control assumes that every player in the game is rich solely by virtue of his owning a developed property for which the amount of rent for it is more than $500.00 and without regard for the actual amount of wealth in terms of real money he/she has on hand. "Rent Control". In order to comply with the presumably satirical intent of this variant rules set, shouldn't only players who have accumulated a certain level of wealth (in terms of money on hand) be charged 20% by the Bank for collecting rent that exceeds $500.00? (Again, this is an example of means testing.)

In that respect, once again, it's necessary to set forth in the variant rules that every player has to publicly account for the amount of money he/she has on hand because it's open information.

Rule #3 concerning the Housing Bailout Fund should be means-tested so that players who have accumulated a certain level of wealth (in terms of money on hand) be charged a certain percentage of their on-hand wealth. The notion of the player with the greatest net worth making up the difference seems unbalanced and satirically off base.

Rules # 4 and #5 concerning Utility Costs and Train Engine Fuels should likewise be means-tested because again, they erroneously presume that all players are rich without regard to the amount of their actual on-hand-cash wealth.

Rule #6 concerning the Occupy Movement strikes me as most erroneous as the greater majority of the folks in the actual movement would probably not be able to afford to pay money in the first place. Therefore, to satirically capture the flavor of blocking movement, if/when a player with less than $1000.00 of on-hand wealth lands on ANY of the corner spaces of the board, he may announce "Occupy!" thereby stating his intention to take advantage of his having landed there by exact count to instigate an "Occupy" non-movement, whereby he forfeits his next move, thus preventing players entering or already on that side of the board immediately behind him from moving up to or past the space occupied by the Occupy player's token AND preventing any rent from being collected on the properties on that side of the board behind the Occupy token. Announcing "Occupy!" also means that one is automatically forfeiting movement from that spot on his next turn in order to remain on that same corner spot and of course, so his opponents would not be able to move their tokens up to or past the space where the Occupy player's token rests.

Now when his next turn comes up, the Occupy player can pay 5% of his on-hand money wealth to remain rooted to that spot AND can then accept toll payments by his fellow players in order for them to continue moving forward past him. (Players would not be able to roll and move up to the same spot where the Occupy player's token rests because the Occupy player only occupies that spot and another Occupy event cannot take place on that same corner square until the current Occupy player has left it.

The Occupy player is not obligated, however, to collect toll payments from his fellow opponents and can instead choose to set his own terms. For example, an opponent might offer to waive rent collection to the Occupy player for some, select or all his properties for the next round (cycle around the board) or even offer a cash "donation".

If the Occupy player intends to set a certain toll payment, then he must publicly announce it. If the Occupy player announces he will be accepting donations, however then he must write down a certain sum as the minimum amount he will accept as a fair donation to permit passage. His opponents on the same side of the board as the Occupy player whose next dice throw might entitle them to move past the corner space occupied by the Occupy player would write down the amount of donation they're willing to offer to move past the corner space detained by the Occupy player. Once all participating opponents have written down their proposed donation sums, then the Occupy player announces the amount for the minimum toll-passage. All players who wrote down amounts equal or greater than the toll-passage amount must immediately pay the Occupy player and then on their next turns, they'd get to move past the corner space detained by the Occupy player.

The Occupy player could accept sealed bids from all participating players and award passage through the occupied corner square solely to the player who paid the highest amount; however, the Occupy player would have to announce the amounts of all sealed bids, of course. (If two players tie for the highest amount, then they must resubmit another bid and try to outbid each other for that priviledge.)

If, however, a player further back on the board had rolled doubles and wound up on the side of the board blocked by the Occupy player, he could pay off the Occupy player in order on his second roll of the dice to pass the affected corner square *only if* the Occupy player had announced a set fixed amount to be paid for passage. If that player hadn't participated in a Donation or Bidding Process and won it, then he wouldn't be able to move his token past the corner space occupied by the Occupy player.

The Occupy player can only occupy a corner space for three turns.

For the following corner spaces, the following exceptions should be noted:

"Just Visiting": When the Occupy player is on this space, the aforementioned conditions occur. However, any player in Jail is NOT prevented from getting out of Jail. Any time one gets out of Jail, that Player may NOT initiate an Occupy event for one whole round (cycle around the board) because he is "on probation".

"Free Parking": The Occupy player only collects 1/2 of the cash beneath this space if/when the "Collect Cash Under 'Free Parking' Space" Variant is in use. (Any monies collected while an Occupy player is on the "Free Parking" space that would ordinarily be put under it would instead be paid to the Bank.)

"Go To Jail": The Occupy player may remain on the "Go To Jail" space up to three turns and then must go immediately to Jail as per the regular rules. Once out of Jail, however, like other former prisoners, the former Occupy player is "on probation" for one round (cycle around the board) and thus cannot launch another "Occupy!" movement until he completes that "community service."

"Go": The Occupy player does not immediately collect $200.00 when he lands on "Go" and announces an "Occupy!" event. Rather, he must wait until the turn during which he moves from "Go" to move onward to collect his money.

The satirical intent behind my version of the "Occupy Movement" is that it results in non-movement of one's fellow opponents.

Rule #7 about Buying Influence is fine; however, it's rather too isolated and limiting.

For example, to reflect current realities, richer players should be able to sock away extra cash in Offshore Cayman Islands Non-Taxable accounts which are not open information and may be hidden away behind a player screen/shield. The only catch is that the richer players would not immediately be able to draw out cash from their offshore accounts to use during their current turn. Rather, they would be able to draw out cash only at the end of their current turn for use during their next turn.

By the same token, players who own a simple majority of all utilities and/or railroads OR a simple majority of the color groups of properties on one side of the board should be exempt from paying any taxes on them whatsoever.

Furthermore, I would suggest renaming this variant to something like "Monopoly Occupy USA 2012". Otherwise, I'd recommend the author do a bit more research and develop his "Obama Monopoly" variant rules to more accurately reflect and satirically spin select Obama policies only. Although this might also require the creation of whole new sets of Chance and Community Chest cards, I could well imagine a Community Organizer set of cards for a genuine Obama Monopoly variant rules set.

Good luck!

Edited Fri Feb 3, 2012 5:19 pm
Posted Fri Feb 3, 2012 4:41 pm
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Kent Herbert

(Capshun Kent)

United States
Canton
Michigan

Its quite apparent you have been giving lots of thought to my suggestions to making it more difficult to amass alot of money in short order. I like many of those suggestions as they make alot of sense really. However, in the Monopoly games I play, most players are so invested in houses and hotels, they don't really have alot of cash on hand of the kind of numbers you have suggested. But, I really do like your idea of means testing for making payment reductions when rents exceed $500.

Tactically, the Occupy Movement (or non-Movement) purpose was not to block others(as in real life), but to impede one's own progress around the Board when landing on improved properties around the Board becomes harzardous a player's financial health.

I am impressed at your deep analysis, it would be fun and frustrating to try to win a game with all of those handicaps to accumulating a fortune!

Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 2:46 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

Kent Herbert

(Capshun Kent)

United States
Canton
Michigan

Great suggestions. So far, the only suggestion you have that is in the Obama rules I suggested is the triggering of a bailout of anyone that goes bankrupt using the bailout tax fund players contribute to as they pass go or receive excessive rents(profits). Players lose only one property per bankruptcy reorg until out of properties. It seems like it will take a while to go out of the game being totally bankrupt - Chapter 11.

Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 2:53 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote

James King

(ShreveportLAGamer)

United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana

Capshun Kent wrote:

Great suggestions. So far, the only suggestion you have that is in the Obama rules I suggested is the triggering of a bailout of anyone that goes bankrupt using the bailout tax fund players contribute to as they pass go or receive excessive rents(profits). Players lose only one property per bankruptcy reorg until out of properties. It seems like it will take a while to go out of the game being totally bankrupt - Chapter 11.

Well, your reference to "the Obama Rules" still strikes me as erroneous since the bailout was voted on in 2008 *long before* Sen. Barak Obama ever became President Barak Obama.

In fact, believe it or not, there already is a board game based on the 2008 TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) enacted during the Bush/Cheney administration called "Bailout! The Game".

The object of the game is: "Everyone starts off with the best intentions but greed has caused you to make risky investments. Before long, you are forced to realize all your bank is left with is worthless paper. Your only option is to undermine, outsmart and devour the competition and make it to Bailout Bank before they do."

Its BGG game entry is at: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/55127/bailout-the-gam...

Here are some excerpts about its development from its Wikipedia.org entry:

"Bailout! The Game" is a board game created in 2008 by Jordy and Shari Sopourn. The Sopourns, a married couple living in South Florida, were trying to explain the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—better known as the government bailout—to their three home-schooled children. Due to the children's young age (the oldest was ten), they had trouble understanding the concept, so their parents turned it into a board game. According to Jordy, the game "took on a life of its own" and the couple decided to self-publish the game.

Each player chooses a bank to play (examples: "Bankruptcy O’ America," "Worth Farless"), and starts with $2.5 billion. Each turn, players make an investment decision which can cause their bank to gain or lose assets based on die rolls. The game winner is the bank with the largest amount of debt, who wins the "Bailout."

"Bailout!" debuted at the Chicago Toy and Game Fair in November 2009, although its first media mention was on the Fox Business Network in June 2009.

______________________________________________________________

As to the Bailout Fund mechanics of your Monopoly variant, there ought to be some temporary penalties for going bankrupt, like having a sizable percentage of your income from rental properties, from passing Go, and from drawing good-fortune cards in Chance or Community Chest to be garnished in order to pay back the bank for the bailout loan.

Back in 2000, I created and posted to the rec.games.board newsgroup the following Monoply variant entitled "Double-Dipping Rent Collection Versus Eviction" and "Strategic Depreciation of Opponents' Property Values", a combination of Monopoly variants whose game mechanics bear an uncanny resemblance to some of those of the 2008 "Monopoly City" board game. Feel free to check 'em out at the two links below:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.board/msg/c136ef4c0...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.board/msg/1cde2b3d4...

Edited Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:57 am
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:56 am
- Choose your Dice
  - d4
  - d6
  - d8
  - d10
  - d12
  - d20
  - d100
  - Help
  - Roll
  - Comment (Optional)
- Reply
- Quote