Talk:Mao (card game): Difference between revisions

Mao is an excellent game. If you can find anyone to learn the game from the 'correct way', do so. Otherwise, you might consider creating your own Mao variant and spreading the fun (instanity?) to your friends. Just keep in mind that its Fun, and meant to be fun. You'll always have some losers thatgive up to quick or get angry, but if you have too many, perhaps your base rules are too strict.

---

Spoilers

The fun of this game is that others don't know the rules. In fact, from my experience, there are so many different variations of this game that it would be impossible to define a "standard" set or a list of rules that are always in effect no matter what the variant. As has been stated on several other sites about the game, listing rules online spoils the game for those who are new to it and can even confuse them more than they were before (due to difference between variants). This particular article has a great section on names, history, etc., but I'd like to propose that the "spoilers" be removed. There is plenty of information about the game that can be given without trying to reveal rules. I'll make this change myself in a bit if there are no objections, but I wanted to post to the talk page first and see if anyone has any input. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 21:50, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I object to the removal. They're clearly marked as spoilers, and the reason why they are spoilers are also explained in the opening paragraph, so if someone prefers to learn the game the way it's "meant to be learned" they'll have plenty of opportunity to avoid reading them. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who may prefer to just read the rules directly. Perhaps they want to try starting a game and neither they nor anyone else in their group has played before, or perhaps they're working on some sort of scholarly study of games like this, or perhaps they simply find it more fun this way. It's not Wikipedia's place to judge such preferences. Perhaps to make the other sections of the article more accessible to those who prefer to avoid spoilers, though, the rule section could be moved down to the end of the article? I'll do that now. Bryan 22:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Valid points. I'd still rather the rules be excluded (one of the "unspoken rules" of the game itself is that no one ever reveal what they have learned), but I'll consider that opinion my own POV in this case. When I have some time I will edit the article a bit to make it more clear that the spoilers are there as well as the "unspoken rule" bit (which I do think is an important part of understanding the game), but I'll leave the rules themselves there. Thanks. -- Jrdioko 03:16, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have played Cambridge Mao myself many times before. But... if the main rule is to not talk about the rules beforehand - why does this page talk about it then??? I demand to delete the part of the Mao rules on this page. --N-true 11:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's a clear spoiler warning before the section on rules and the reasons why one might wish to avoid reading them are stated in the first part of the article. If someone wishes to avoid reading the rules then it's quite easy for them to avoid doing so. I've argued this point before, see above. Bryan 15:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I am not adamantly opposed to displaying the rules of the game here with an adequate spoiler warning, but if it came down to a vote, I would vote against their inclusion. The spoiler warning is nice, but in all honesty, who cares about it? Almost all readers of this page will invariably spoil the fun for themselves and prospective Mao mates. — Additionally, it is clear from the above that a substantial number of players of the game oppose to the inclusion of the rules, so I believe we should go for the community opinion and remove them. — Timwi 09:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe that players of the game should have special rights in determining what should be included in an article about the game. This would be a bad policy to apply to Wikipedia articles in general, IMO, and so on principle I find myself adamantly opposed to removing them simply for the sake of Mao players' desire for secrecy. For example, it's clear that the Scientology community opposes the dissemination of information about their scriptures, so should we remove the information from Scientology beliefs and practices#Secret writings? I also presented some other arguments I think are compelling to User:Jrdioko back in April, above.

Anyway, in the spirit of compromise, if the spoiler warning isn't sufficient to prevent wandering eyeballs perhaps a separate rules of Mao page would help? As long as they're available to anyone who actually wants to read them I'm satisfied. Bryan 02:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

BTW, I used to play a variation now known as "Archimedeans Mao" (with no badger) at the PGR in Cambridge back around 1991-1993 or so. Just curious to see if anyone else who was there is reading this. —Ashley Y 09:58, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

I'm in Cambridge and I have no idea what PGR is :-) The only variants I know are Cambridge Mao and the blasphemous Oxford Mao. — Timwi 20:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So where do you play Mao? —Ashley Y 12:03, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)