Talk:Mao (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Stuff that might be moved into the article 2 Spoilers 3 Personal Notes (Cambridge) 4 Introduction 5 Removed para 6 Entire Article is Spoiler 7 History of Mao 8 Vote 9 Ever-expanding variant rule list 10 Other Name Variations 11 Rules removed 12 One or two additions 13 Uncited material removed from article 14 Last Card/Mao 15 How I see the game 16 Mao Master 17 Mao and Mao Zedong 18 Illegal plays 19 Opinion on article and inclusion of rules 19.1 Keep article; keep rules 20 Rules 21 Dealers & Special Players 22 Commonality of varried rules 23 Too many rules 24 Spoiler warning? Where? 25 Some insightful thoughts 26 Citations?! 27 We Love This Game!!! 28 History 29 End game rules 30 Way to get around the rules restriction

[edit] Stuff that might be moved into the article

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.

Point of order: I have heard people say that experienced players should speak gently and politely in cooperative games so that new players are able to learn and do not feel set upon. This is, of course, simply an observation of what I have often seen or heard. End point of order --Zippy 01:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a little note I'd like to make - Me and my friends play a variation where you say "Thank you" after getting a penalty card... do any of you guys play like that?

I didn't. To the contrary, our variant required and permitted a player to say "thank you" only upon playing a card of the same rank and suit as the card on the top of the pile (for example, an eight of diamonds on an eight of diamonds). Saying "thank you" at any other time was a penalizable violation.Spikebrennan 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Explaining the rules (takes card from pile, hands it to Jrdioko). I agree, the article certainly should not adhere to the rules of what it describes. Talking (takes card from pile). --Zippy 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Other sites have shown the rules by giving example games (but not pointing out the rules) thus giving information, but respecting the spirit of the game (ie. the person wanting to learn the rules must figure them out). I feel this is the best course...

---

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)

See Meta:Wikipiedia is not Mao. --Zippy 01:14, 15 November 2005 (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)

Yeah, we give away the plots of fictional works, Scientology secrets, pseudonyms, and how stage magic is done. It would be consistent to give away the rules of Mao also, would it not? —Ashley Y 12:12, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Obviously, if we're going to have an article about it, we must talk about it. The rules of Mao forbid telling anyone anything about it -- it's the whole point of the game. But then, we're not snarky sorority girls -- I hope. We're writing an encylopedia, so we open all the dark tombs. — Xiong (talk) 18:47, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why not just have the rules list be a separate page, and have this page link to it? lvlarx 04:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned that possibility a few paragraphs up, last year. But I've since decided it's not really worth the extra bother it would cause; 90% of the article would be on another page and what would be left would be rather stubbish. We've got a spoiler warning with an extra paragraph explaining the spoiler warning, I think that should be sufficient to satisfy purists. Bryan 06:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed that. I'm such an idiot >_< lvlarx 22:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone gets blind spots now and then. :) At the time I proposed splitting off the rules into their own article, this article had the rules in a section in the middle - there was additional non-spoiler material down below it, which was awkward to get to without seeing the spoiler stuff. Since then the article's been rearranged so that the spoiler stuff is all at the bottom, which hopefully helps things as well. Bryan 02:54, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point of Order: I agree with Bryan. End point of order --Zippy 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to add this small point that I think no one has realized yet. The only time you (as a new player) would ever hear about Mao is in the fifteen seconds or so before a game begins.

You: "Hey, you wanna play Mao?"

Me: "What's that?"

You: The only rule I can tell you is this one." etc.

So if that's the case, the only people who would ever find their way to this page are people who have played the game at least once. (Did any of you honestly ever hear of Mao BEFORE the first time you played?) Now, given that the only people coming here already know the game and have deduced at least the base rules of their variations, what's the harm in explaining other variations? Other rules? Clever rules to bring to your home game? What are we REALLY afraid of here?

You: "Hey, you wanna play Mao?"

Me: "Yeah, but hold on, let me check wikipedia.com so I know EXACTLY what I'm getting into."

(5 hours pass, because unbeknownst to me, the article is extremely thorough)

Me: "On second thought, I'd rather not play Mao, because it seems like a cruel joke just to make an ass of me."

You: "You always ruin everything! Damn wikipedia.com!!!" --User:ZimZimmah 01:14, 01 April 2006

Eh. A lot of people find Mao being mentioned on other pages of the Internet, including other pages of Wikipedia. I'd certainly heard it mentioned a lot in Nomic circles long before I'd ever played it. I don't think this is any reason not to explain the rules on a Wikipedia page, though. --McGeddon 14:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it by using an acronym for what I was searching for and this game came up. **ahem** I didn't know of it before... VentusIgnis 01:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be made more clear that the listed rules are just examples of what some groups use to play. It should be included that many people that play, do not use many of these rules, and that many people may have rules that are not listed here. It should be spelled out, because I ran into an arguement with somebody who tried to play with my, and insisted I was wrong because the rules that my friends and I have been playing are not the same as the rules in the wiki. It NEEDS to be shown as a example of rules, rather than listed as just "rules". Other than that, I think that, even if you read all of the rules in this article, you will have just as much fun playing with a group for the first time, because you will have to learn their rules, in the same fashon.EAnchak (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Notes (Cambridge)

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)

The history of Mao in Cambridge in the 1990s is of some local interest. It was introduced to various people at the International Maths Olympiad over the summer of 1992 (and was introduced as a varient of the game "Bartok"). One of those mathematicians introduced it to the PGR (a games-playing social meeting of the university maths society) in Jan/Feb 1993 (I have the dubious honour of having played in that first game). Unfortunately, he misremembered a couple of rules, leading to a branch of basic rules known as "PGR Rules", or "Archimedeans Mao" (notably, in PGR rules, the Queen skips a place, rather than the Ace). In summer 1993, I introduced this to people at various other universities, but without the "no talking" rule. In October 1993, another of the Olympiad Mathematicians arrived at Cambridge, and started the "Only Official Cambridge Maths Society" (OOCMS). The OOCMS Rules were identical to those introduced at the Olympiad, with the additional of the "Badger" card (and new standard rule, based on the identity of a particular card in Poker). Various descendents of these two versions competed around Cambridge for the following few years - I'd be interested in which version Timwi refers to as "Cambridge Mao". At least one branch of OOCMS Mao generated the meta-rule that added extra rules to the "basic" set. This eventually became unwieldy for new players, leading to a third varient, in which there is no "basic" ruleset (not even which cards can initially be played on each other). Instead, each new player creates three rules at the start of the game. Unfortunately, this has the disadvantage that these rules can conflict with each other, leading to what is (in my view) an inferior varient. I can vaguely recall a fourth Cambridge varient doing the rounds, but can't remember the details. Bluap 10:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

From memory, at least one introduction of Mao to Oxford was in October 1993, being the Maths Olympiad rules (ie OOCMS rules without the badger) Bluap 10:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The rules introduced to Oxford in late 1993 (probably slightly later than October but about then) by me and a friend did include the badger, but had jacks and aces switched around relative to the Cambridge rules, purely due to being misremembered. The transposition stuck, but I can't remember any other differences. I certainly played with Cambridge folk after that and vice versa. [jvvw]

It seems the International Olympiads are responsible for spreading Mao - the only people who seemed to know how to play Mao at cambridge that i've met have take part in various Olympiads. Papable Prostate 16:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have an interest in the origins of Cambridge Mao; I believe the "Only Official" society may have termed their version "Unofficial" or "Only Official" Cambridge 5-card Mao, can this be verified? Who founded the OOCMS -- was it "Ping" or somebody like that? I had once an ancient ASCII text file containing a family tree of Cambridge variants, which was annotated with these sorts of attributions, but it's lost. Any information would be appreciated anyway.

The "ancient ASCII text file" referred to is given in the citations: it is http://web.archive.org/web/20010712084954/www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/3087/mao/maotree.txt Iamgrim 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a current first year, and it certainly seems to be the Olympians who spread Mao in this year (graduating 2008). They term the variant 'standard fifth generation five card Cambridge Mao' and refer to several previous generations with differing rule sets. I assume that refers to your schism. The Badger is in play, the Ace skips, and there is a basic ruleset in place. - Plants

, 24 Mar 2006

Regarding Mao in UK IMO circles, I learned in 2002 what called itself "standard Cambridge five card Mao." Playing with a 1990s UK IMO player in 2002 or 2003, we discovered that there had been some minor mutations in the rules (I think relating to drawing and playing in the same turn). In response to this it was decided to introduce a numbering scheme (if you learn by playing an Nth-generation game then you can start an (N+1)-th generation game), and the current ruleset was estimated as the third generation since Mao was introduced to UK Olympiad people in 1992/3 (I am dubious about this estimate). Various people who became fourth generation players later made some changes to the rules (I think about the use of non-standard packs of cards) and renumbered as fifth generation. These people have now brought it to first year in Trinity and to some extent other colleges. Following their departure, Mao has died out in the UK IMO squad itself as of April 2006 (but this may of course be only temporary). Martin Orr 09:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for being so long with my reply. It would certainly be interesting to compare the game you know with the one I learnt as "Cambridge unofficial non-standard 5-card Mao" in 1996. My theory is that "unofficial" is a corruption of "only official" from the Cambridge OOCMS described above (the game I learnt had Badgers, incidentally.) Finally, it would be interesting to trace back the word-of-mouth history by contacting the people who taught you the game and asking them to do the same... :) 80.192.24.132 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit of digging on archive.org reveals that Luke Pebody used to maintain the Mao page of the abovementioned OOCMS. He relates:

"When in Russia, I was taught the game Mao by a group of canadians who had been taught by Ping. Ping himself had been taught by some germans. Another guy in Russia with me, was called Robin Michaels. We both came back to England, and Robin came to Cambridge straight away, whereas I came a year later. In that year, Robin had taught some people the game, as had I. Robin had got the rules mixed up, creating a different version (the Archimedeans' Mao). Through two people who I taught the game to, Dave Walker and Alistair Flutter, badgers were introduced to my version. When I went to Istanbul at the end of that year, Mao was played with Ping!, and it was decided that my version should be the international standard. Since then, it gained the name "Cambridge Mao", and also two new rules. It's actually quite good."

(See http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2157/mao.html earliest available archive 4th February 1999.)

This corresponds with Bluap's account, and supplies a few names: Robin Michaels as (accidental!) originator of Archimedeans' Mao / PGR rules, and Pebody himself as the 1993 importer whose version appears to be the main ancestor of Mao as played in the UK. The term "Cambridge Mao" would therefore refer to Pebody's revised version with Badgers and "two new rules" which are, perhaps fittingly, undisclosed. Iamgrim 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

...and it would appear that the elusive "Ping" is Ka-Ping Yee. Iamgrim 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another point of data: I learned Mao from Michael Greene at University of Warwick in 1995 or so, and from the description above it sounds as though the version we played there was this Archimedeans' Mao. We definitely used queens rather than aces to skip turns; we also didn't break play between rounds: once you had exhausted your cards you could either sit out for a while as everyone else played or just take a new set of five cards from the stack and start again, introducing a new rule when you felt like it. This seems to differ slightly from the rules described in the article (or at least the implication of them). New players could also join in at any point, although it would have been a bit tricky towards the end of the game (which typically went on for several hours). JulesH 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Michael Greene was an Archimedean, and (like myself) learned the game from Robin Michaels. Bluap 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fantastical fun that is Mao is to torture people who don't know the rules (which included myself, at one stage) until they use their deductive powers to learn the game. Depending on how much time is dedicated to the first few games ever played by a person/group, it is highly likely that those newcomers will still be confused by the end of the game and then, in frustration, stumble across wikipedia. Therefore, it is best to protect the integrity of the game to delete the rules.Davo mcBAM 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The correct introduction to the game is "The only rule I can tell you is this one." I put it in; User:Dmn took it out. He maintains his edit is "standard"; I asked him to support that assertion; he has failed to do so. We can't seem to work this out quietly.

Actually, I play Mao where the dealer says something completely different. So you're mostly wrong.--ItsJodo 02:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm going to put the correct introduction back in. The article on Mao should be introduced by the correct introduction to the game. This is the same thing as saying that an explanation of "What is an orange?" is best introduced by handing someone a real orange. Later, you can tell all about oranges -- where they come from, how they are grown, the chemical composition of the peel, photos of orange trees -- but if you can do so, first you simply hand over the orange. — Xiong (talk) 18:47, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Well, your version does seem less encyclopedic in that it directly addresses the reader with "you" and "I". Also, it implies more uniformity than there actually is in the real world; the amount of information given to new players varies from group to group. I've tried rewriting it a bit to make that clearer. Bryan 19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your version is fine. I dislike the spoiler warning, on grounds that its mere presence gives something important away. But it's fine, really. I just believe in keeping in as much flavor as possible. A thing is always its own best representation.

Ideally, the new Mao player is royally abused, publicly humiliated, kept in the dark as long as possible. The conversation should come around to the game as naturally as possible:

A Frat Boy: "Hey, this show sucks. Besides, I already know who shot J. R."

Another Frat Boy: "Yeah, turn it off."

Third Frat Boy: "Let's play cards."

First Frat Boy: "Yeah, sure, but I'm tired of Poker. Wanna play Hearts?"

Wiseguy: "Nah, Hearts is for losers. How about Mao, guys?"

All the Frat Boys: "Oh, yeah, let's play Mao, great game, great game."

New Fish: "I never heard of that Mao. How does it go?"

Wiseguy: "Wait, let me get a deck of cards....Okay, here we go. (starts to deal) Now, the only rule I can tell you is this one. (finishes dealing)"

New Fish picks up his cards and, immediately, Second Frat Boy shouts "Picking up cards before dealer! Penalty card!", draws a card from the stack and pushes it over to New Fish.

New Fish: "What? What kind of rule is that?"

First Frat Boy: "Asking about the rules! Penalty card!" and New Fish gets another.

New Fish: "I wasn't asking about the rule, I just meant, well --"

Third Frat Boy: "Unnecessary talking! Penalty card!"

Before the first card has been played, New Fish has 3 penalty cards, and is in the running to pick up another couple, unless he's quick on the uptake.

That is how Mao is played: ruthlessly, viciously, and with malice aforethought. If all involved are good friends, well, it's all in fun -- these are the same guys who put dead frogs in each other's beds and laugh about it while pouring beer on each other.

Of course, if you tried that with one of the guys I learned to play Spades with, you might catch a cap in yo' ass. — Xiong (talk) 00:42, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Look on the bright side; such persons aren't going to have the opportunity to read Wikipedia before they start playing anyway. :) Bryan 06:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds utterly hillarious. Oh, wait, I mean pointless.

This is a Wikipedia article, not a game of Mao. Therefore it should conform to the guidelines for Wikipedia articles, not the guidelines for games of Mao. —Ashley Y 02:51, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

This is an article about the game of Mao, not an article about Wikipedia. Therefore it should illustrate the game as vividly as possible, not an artificial standard for Wikipedia article-writing. The ideal explanation of a grapefruit is a grapefruit.

"Illustrating as vividly as possible" is not an overriding concern of Wikipedia articles. They must also conform to Wikipedia guidelines.

There is a school of thought that maintains the only proper explanation of a grapefruit is a grapefruit, and the entire article on Mao should consist of the single, correct, introductory line. I am much less extreme. — Xiong熊talk* 01:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

If the only proper explanation of a grapefruit is a grapefruit, then the only proper explanation of a game of Mao is a game of Mao, not a Wikipedia article. The logical consequent is that you should go play Mao, and leave this article alone. —Ashley Y 04:36, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Mao is awesome. It's the game of choice for me.

'The ideal explanation of a grapefruit is a grapefruit'? Since when? By that logic, the ideal explanation of death is to die. I think this maxim confuses the word explanation with the word example. --CorbettGM (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed para

Ideally, you will learn the game from another the way it was meant to be learned. This section is intended for those how are interested in creating their own Mao variant, or who are otherwise interested in the game without the desire to play it "as intended."

I removed this in line with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. —Ashley Y 02:45, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The only part that seems like a self reference to me is the wording 'This section'. Perhaps replace with 'The following'? I think some note like that should remain in the article myself. Twinge 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bryan 08:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely the role of the spoiler warning. —Ashley Y 08:12, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

No, the spoiler warning is much more general than this. This paragraph explains why it's a spoiler to read farther into the article. Bryan 15:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It is, but we might also write "Ideally, you will learn the plot from the movie. This section is intended for those who have forgotten details, or are interested in the movie without the desire to see it.". Instead, however, we stick to a generic spoiler warning. —Ashley Y 01:42, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Yes, because that particular spoiler message wouldn't make any sense here. I'm not really sure what the problem is here, especially in the context of the original "no self-references" issue (which the "the following" should take care of). Bryan 16:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That still counts as self-reference (i.e. Wikipedia referring to itself, not necessarily the paragraph referring to itself). It's a paragraph about the article, not a paragraph about the subject. —Ashley Y 00:57, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I think you're applying a semi-policy guideline far more strictly than it was actually intended. If you'll take a look at the policy page itself, you'll see that it's primarily concerned with articles referring to Wikipedia or to the fact that this is a website, since Wikipedia's content could be forked by other projects or distributed via other media. In fact, here's a quote directly from the policy page:

Don't forget, we want to make the creation of a print version of Wikipedia as easy as possible, so try to use terms such as "this article" as opposed to "this website"

See also the Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references#Neutral_references section. "The following" is even more context-neutral than "this article", and so IMO is explicitly allowed by this semi-policy. I'm going to reinsert the paragraph with Twinge's modification now since I'm quite confident there's no violation here. Bryan 07:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The examples given in that section turn out to be in "meta" italics. Accordingly, I shall do the same to this paragraph. In any case, I think the spoiler warning is all that's necessary. —Ashley Y 08:32, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I think it really helps to reinforce the 'spirit' of Mao, and should stay. It's certainly fine in meta italics though. -Twinge 10:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entire Article is Spoiler

This entire article is a spoiler, an explanation of that which is not to be explained. Now that's fine by me; Mao is a cruel practical joke more than a game. However, it is our standing practice to label spoilers -- details that give away the joke, the punch line, whatever you want to call it.

The game is to be introduced with exactly one sentence: The only rule I can tell you is this one. From that point on, the new player (victim) is told nothing outside of play. Every shred of knowledge is gained at the cost of additional humiliation. That's just the way it is.

If you, the reader, wish to detour around this social minefield, perhaps to turn the tables on your buddies, or learn enough about Mao to avoid the need to play it at all, well, that's what we're here for. But absolutely nothing can be said about the game which is not a spoiler; that is the structure of the game -- its entire purpose.

To remove the unusual introduction and the unusually-located {{spoiler}} tag is to deceive the reader into thinking that this game is some variant of Uno. But Uno is played for fun by people who know the simple rules; Mao is played by consiprators to exploit the ignorance of the new player for their amusement alone. Please do not attempt to whitewash this important distinction. — Xiong熊talk* 09:05, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. While Mao can be played this way, it is VERY possible to play Mao with EVERYONE's fun and entertainment in mind. The spirit of Mao as I see it is to have FUN playing a game, not caring about who wins or loses. This is why I generally tell new players 'it's kind of like Uno/Crazy Eights' (Nothing more, but they have something to start on at least). I also think having the winner of a round come up with a new rule is problematic since the new rule will make them more likely to win again; instead I think it's better to be even (usually, rotate around the table). In other words, you can be nice to newbies without runing the spirit any fun of the game. I once had over half of a small college class (25ish people), including the teacher, playing Mao, and I'm not even a very social person. Every single person playing was laughing and having a good time, even if they were losing horribly. Some folks do indeed play it to be cruel and feel superior; others such as myself play it for fun. -Twinge 10:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiong writes "The game is to be introduced with exactly one sentence: The only rule I can tell you is this one. From that point on, the new player (victim) is told nothing outside of play. Every shred of knowledge is gained at the cost of additional humiliation. That's just the way it is."

That's not the way we played it at Cambridge. See the section "Public rules". —Ashley Y 22:02, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Telling new players more than the simple "The only rule I can tell you is this one" seems boring and a misunderstanding of how the game works. It also ruins the mystery when someone invites you play and refuses to tell you any rules. Plus it is unfair on those who have never played Uno, which isn't as prevalent in the UK as I believe it is in the USA. Dmn / Դմն 08:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think this article should report on the game as it is played, not the game as you think it ought to be played. —Ashley Y 09:06, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Depends. I've played it where everyone knows the initial rules, and the winner of each round creates a new rule. It can be a lot of fun, and lead to duck duck goose. --SPUI (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re cruel practical joke, I can see how this would be true with either the wrong group of experienced players, or a potential perception of a new player. However, this is not the intent of the players I have observed. It does help to have a large group rather than a small one, especially with a mix of multiple new and experienced players. --Zippy 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Mao

Spikebrennan 04:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) writes "It might be nice to try to trace the origin of some of the more widespread strains of the game. For example, the variant I learned (in approximately 1988) was called Pennsylvania Mao (which ultimately came to include a number of variant rules that I introduced). One aspect found in some variants of Mao but not in Pennsylvania Mao is the rule that no talking at all is permitted other than calls specifically required by the mechanics of the game. Pennsylvania Mao (and several other independently-developed variants that I've seen) does not have this silence rule-- rather, some kinds of talking are specifically prohibited (such as asking questions, swearing, and blasphemy, all of which are cardable violations). From this, I might surmise that there are two main "branches" off of the Mao trunk-- one of which has the general silence rule, and the other does not. (Addressed to readers who are familar with Mao): Is it possible to develop a "taxonomy" of Mao variants?

I have observed that groups of people playing something they call the Cambridge version do not talk except to announce violations, however a great deal of conversation may occur after a player says point of order. Regarding swearing and blasphemy, I have not observed any behaviors correlated to these. --Zippy 01:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That could be tricky. I know for a fact that I have spawned a new branch of Mao myself, Left-Handed UMBC Mao, which I started using because I had seen the Everything2.com entry on Mao (with the sample game) and also played a game with someone who was using some varient of Mao I've never seen described before. By combining the rules I gleamed from those two sources, I came up with something that's still definitely Mao, but pisses off everyone who's ever played a different version. We definitely allow talking, swearing isn't outlawed, we knock on the table for each "repeated" (same value) card (and knock an additional time for each further repeated card), follow the "Have a (very very etc) Nice Day" rule with passing forewards two penalty cards, and also have some other added idiosyncracies... "bad" cards played still have their various effects, for instance, and we have all kinds of rules for how to select the first dealer (who gets to add a new rule right from the getgo). It'd be really tricky to track the trees where these rules came from though, even though I know most/all of them DID come from somewhere.

I suspect all the varients and branches come from somewhere, in fact, but actually naming the source? It's not like anyone writes this stuff down, or even REMEMBERS it half the time. It's a mystery probably lost to the ages. Fieari 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The initial Cambridge versions evolved from the IMO '92 Mao, which had the silence rule, and "Point of Order" / "End of Point of Order". No swearing, but there was a "taking the name of our leader in vain" penalty, for anyone saying the word "Mao", apart from when ending the game. Unfortunately, there isn't a simply silence / no-silence divide in the evolution of the game. Some of the descendants of the Cambridge game (including one that I taught) removed the silence rule, in order to make the game more sociable. Bluap 10:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Spikebrennan 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC) The version of Mao that I learned was in suburban Philadelphia in about 1989. I believe that the guy I had learned it from had picked it up from the Center for Talented Youth in the mid- to late- eighties. The salient features of this Mao, as I learned it, included: no silence rule (but no swearing, no blasphemy, no questions, and no statement that is a proper game call at an improper time), "Point of Order"/"End Point of Order", "Have a nice day" doubling on sevens, _any_ player may enforce any rule (but penalties apply to improperly enforcing a rule), and "delay of game" penalties for failing to promptly play when it is your turn. I then introduced some additional rules of my own devise and named my variant "Pennsylvania Mao"-- my new rules included the "Jim Morrison" rule, permitting the "Have a nice day" rule to be explained, the "Thank you" rule (requiring a player to call "Thank you" upon playing a card of identical rank and suit as the top card), and the assignment of particular roles to players-- (of which the only one that really took off was "Custodian of the Deck"). I brought this variant with me to the University of Chicago in 1991, where at least one other Mao variant was already known at that time. Other variants that I have encountered from time to time include one in which the phrase "Por favor" is substituted for "Point of Order".

Your version is remarkably similar to the one I learned... interesting. Fieari 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone helpfully added http://web.archive.org/web/20010712084954/www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/3087/mao/maotree.txt as an Internet Archive reference to the main page. I'm the "Dennis Brennan" referred to there. Spikebrennan 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all! So after reading you all speculate about the possibility of mapping out a "Mao Family Tree," so to speak, I've decided to just go ahead and try to get started. I've started a website for my project over at [1] with the intention of collecting as many versions as possible, along with personal histories like the few given here. I doubt I'll be able to find the origins of the game, but expect that it will be possible to get a pretty significant tree of variants going over time. I'd love as much help as I can get. --lelandpaul 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the link that Lelandpaul added.[2] STWeston (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

I would like to call a vote on whether or not rules should be included in this article. Please vote from a registered account (not anonymously), and sign and date your vote with four tildes. Following the convention on deleting pages etc, please vote Keep Rules, or Delete Rules, or Abstain. You may add your own comments after your vote.

• Keep Rules Bluap 15:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Spikebrennan 23:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is a rather silly vote. There's no way this would be enforcable even if it does result in consensus to remove them. --SPUI (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

At least it's an attempt to try to work out what the consensus is Bluap 23:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Rules. This getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Mao. Bryan 00:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rules. pfahlstrom 22:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Rules Ian Jackson Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:19:19 +0100

Would an example game satisfy people as a compromise ?

• No. Bryan 00:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this. The rules are staying. We publish spoilers for movies, books, magic tricks and Scientology, and this is no different. —Ashley Y 03:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep an example ruleset. It's not possible to tell people "the rules", as there is no truly definitive set. But the flavor of the game in all its many variations can be described with an example ruleset, which could be a composite of relatively-typical sets rather than any version known to be played by any group. I'm for keeping rules up only with a disclaimer that most groups play at least a little bit differently. Also, since the standard way to learn is through play, an example for those who want to learn about the game but don't want to "cheat" and read the spoiler section - based on the same rules described there - would certainly be in order. teucer

I agree with Teucer...knowing the rules that are on here and bringing them back to a local game can do very little to help you, and in fact, using some of the rules on here will probaly get you penalized in a local game. So knowing these rules is of NO ADVANTAGE, and actually is a slight disadvantage.PakRatt0013

• Keep Rules. I think these rules need, however, a spoiler warning saying that the rules may not be correct, and "should only be used to create a new version." It helped me make my own version! Still, I know full well that this has been put up, but this is necessary to make a fair game for everyone, even though it's not all too fair to begin with. STWeston (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ever-expanding variant rule list

One situation where the rules actually could use some culling is situations where, as with the recent edit by 62.253.128.12, variant rules are added without any sources or indication of how common they are. Since every Mao game ever played could potentially have its own little variants and quirks that only appear in that one group's games I think it may be best to stick to the "core" rules that are common across pretty much all Mao games. If nobody objects to this notion I'll eventually try to Wikipedia:Cite sources for the rules listed in the article and move the unsourced variants here to talk:. Bryan 16:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I object. Who can judge what's standard? Since by nature little documentation of this game exists, citing sources is a dubious prospect at best. What is a standard, invariable rule to one person may be completely different from someone else's "standard" version; for example, several games I played (where I was not the source of the rules) with completely unconnected people from Utah and Ohio used the same standard ruleset and I cannot see any possible connection between these two very different groups of people, yet they differed from the rules previously presented here on several important points.

I can agree that the rules section is growing alarmingly and that people should hesitate to submit rules they know are unlikely to have spread beyond their personal playing groups, but it is difficult to tell for certain which of the rules currently submitted fall among which category.

I think a more general outline of categorized rules rather than the current card-value-based organization may be a good idea. pfahlstrom 22:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's my experience that most rules fall into one of two catagories. "When <something> happens, do something (like say a phrase, sing a song, knock on the table, etc)", or "When <something> happens, something happens to the game itself (like skip someone's turn, reverse turn order, etc)". This would be a good way of catagorizing things, I think, and we could even get rid of the specific cards that trigger each effect, as there's a very good chance that the triggering cards will vary from group to group. For example, where I play, all 3s reverse turn order, and jacks often skip the next person's turn. By organizing it this way, it also makes room for discussion on what could be a triggering effect... specific cards, yes, but also "switching from number cards to face cards", "playing anything after an ace", "changing suit", "crossing your fingers", "when the top two cards add up to 13 (like playing a five on top of an eight)", and so forth. I think that would give a much better sense of the rules.

Furthermore, then there could be either subpages or subsections detailing specific rule sets, such as "Cambridge" or "Oxford" or whatever, as well as the HISTORY involved. Reading the history above in the talk page has been fascinating. I think it would go well in the article itself. Fieari 22:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

On the rules issue, there is a big question of whether we should just list "base rules" (which come into play in every game), or examples of "additional rules" (ones which are made up during the game. Personally, I feel that we should just include the former. However many of the rules seem to be the latter. This is complicated by the fact that some groups have a "perpetual Mao", where one of the additional rules gets added into the base ruleset. One the History issue, I am very tempted to try to create a subpage, where any Wikipedia user can describe the rules varient they use, and how they learned the game, in the aim of eventually creating a "family tree of Mao". This would definitely break the "No original research" rule, but would be a fascinating exercise (perhaps in the talk page)

[edit] Other Name Variations

I learned a version of this game a few years ago which calls itself Traditional MOW, where "MOW" is pronounced exactly like "Mao" and is supposedly an acronym for "My Own Way." It seems to contain most of the rules that everyone else is familiar with, although, of course, in new permutations. For instance, "have a nice day," "it's good to be the king," and skipping and reverse direction rules, etc. all make an appearance. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else learned a version which calls itself MOW and completely ignores the connection to totalitarian regimes... Also, Traditional insists on saying "Point of Interest" rather than "Point of Order;" I'd be nice to know if any other versions include this rather odd change. --lelandpaul 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of Order is a phrase from Robert's Rules of Order, the book on parlementry procedure. I suspect that what happened was someone learned the game, never having heard the phrase "Point of Order" before, and when he went to teach someone else how to play, misremembered how to say it. I suspect it's unique to your group, as such. Likewise, with "Mow", I'd bet he only ever heard the name spoken, never written down, and many groups won't explain ANYTHING about the game to people... so he thinks it's spelled like that, and then invents a backronymn to fit it. Just theory, of course. Fieari 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, on both counts, but: In both cases, I am assured that the change goes back at least two "generations" of learners, ie. the woman who taught the man who taught me used both "Point of Interest" and "MOW." If it goes back that far, there's at least a chance that one or both is not unique to my group. Also, it seems to me to be extremely difficult to hear the word Mao as spelt "MOW," given that that particular spelling is already an English word, as in "to mow the grass." My hypothesis was that someone learned the game as called "Mao," but didn't much like the political and social connotations (as, I must admit, I myself don't; I'd rather the dealer be portrayed as a teacher than a Dictator) and as such decided to invent something. But, again, that goes back a few generations of learners, so at this point there may be other groups that I'm unaware of spelling it that way. Thus, my question. --lelandpaul 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules removed

Please do not re-add. This is not due to the rule of not telling people the rules, it is due to the fact that the rules haven't been in an acceptable source. See WP:V --71.98.25.209 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For context, the edit was made with a comment of "If The Game(game) was deleted as unverifiable because it hasn't been in a reputable source, the Mao rules shouldn't be in wikipedia.", so this might just be someone annoyed at The Game having been removed (which I agree was a shame, I happened to be reading the AfD the other day, and there was a lot of undeserved snarkiness from people who hadn't heard of it). Don't remember whether Mao's been mentioned in Parlett's books or not, but there are several separate web pages that list the rules and comment on common historical threads, which I'd have thought was enough. --McGeddon 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just being pissy about The Game (game). I admit it. I was probably out of line, sorry. But those web pages don't hold up to the reputable source guidelines! Feel free to readd the rules (or add them to a seperate page and link, that seems to be a fair way to deal with the argument over publish/not.) On another note, it's hard to remove stuff without reading it! --71.98.25.209 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages with rules listed for Mao. The problem is not that they are unreliable, IMO, it's that the article isn't being specific about which rules come from which source. I mentioned this problem last year in #Ever-expanding variant rule list but didn't do anything about it at the time. Now, however, Wikipedia's got a lovely new referencing markup. So tonight's project for myself is to go through this article and thoroughly reference each rule's supporting website, and spatter citation needed templates on the rules that don't have sources in the external links. Eventually those specific rules will either need to have references found or be removed, but removing all of them is unwarranted. Bryan 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break now. Anyone who was holding off for fear of edit conflicts, dive right in. :) Bryan 03:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One or two additions

At the STEP study school we played mau. There was a rule added that was so bizare, but easy to understand, that it needed adding to the list. Technically the 6="I love this game" was an early added rule that somehow managed to survive after resetting the rules. We had the haiku rule attached to playing a club. Penalties were given for accurate haiku that did not describe the card. Poetic liscence was given so that words were defined to have more/less sylables as needed, or words could be trimmed to 1 sylable if needed. I'll tidy this comment up when I wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.78.129 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia's policies on verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability) require that any editor should be able to double-check and confirm facts that are stated in articles, preferbly by looking the information up in some external source. Do you know of any places where this rule is published publically, so that others (such as myself) would be able to look it up? Bryan 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not as we did not write the rules down. Here is a Haiku for the 6 of clubs: this card is a six it is also a club card i love this game (Plus a random sylable from another word)82.38.78.129 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC) <- sorry for not signing before, forgot i had to and how to.

Unfortunately, without a reference of some sort it'll probably have to be removed then. You've probably seen how the other rules have multiple references supporting them, for an article like this that sort of thing is probably necessary. Bryan 16:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

actually there is a lot in this article labelled 'citation needed'16:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and eventually I or someone else will be removing those too. They're left in there for now in the hopes that someone will provide a citation for them at some point (I plan to try finding citations for them myself at some point). I figured in this particular case since the person who'd added the uncited rule was right here right now it'd be a good idea to ask directly if you had a cite. Bryan 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that most of the rules currently listed there now are there because they were part of a long messy list of random rules people were adding to the older version of the article. I simply organized the rules a little more and put them in lists. Citing specific rules would be a good idea, and I support trimming things down. Fieari 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd planned to do that in stages. At some point soon I'll remove the rules that currently have citation needed templates, since they've been languishing that way for a while with no substantiation, and at that point I'll put citation needed templates ona few more of the rules. Eventually they'll go too, if they don't get cited. I figure there's no rush, so might as well give editors plenty of time to find sources if sources exist and they're so inclined. Of course I'll try to find a cite myself before taking each one out. Bryan 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited material removed from article

I'm going to start trimming out some of the older stuff now. I'll move the stuff that looks "significant" to me here, in case future editors do come up with references for it. I'm doing a cursory Googling myself and not finding anything. Bryan 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From the variant rules section:

In order to avoid interaction which would make the game unplayable, a variant called Cleopatran or Cleopatra's Mao has been developed. In this variant the game master makes up three rules (which he can set to interact in funny ways). Ideally, this does not upset the game balance, because once the game master fails to correct others breaking his rules, he is obliged to take two cards.

Also from the variant rules section:

Triggering Conditions The choice of triggering conditions is highly important. You must be aware that for quite some period, you may be the only person capable of enforcing your rule, and that occasionally mis-enforcing it or failing to enforce it altogether is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the game. Hence it must be a rule of which you can easily keep track, and obviously, it must also be a 'fun' rule.

• Playing a card of the same face value
• Playing additional cards of the same face value
• Playing a specific number of cards of the same face value
• Playing a card of a different-colored suit
• Playing an identical card (when multiple decks are used)
• Playing a specific card
• Straightening the pile of cards
• Switching from face cards to numbered cards
• Switching from numbered cards to face cards
• Playing a number card matching the number closest to the minute hand of the clock on the wall
• Playing a prime card, or a fibonacci card
• Playing a card 'upside down' (while many cards are vertically symmetrical, odd-numbered cards other than diamonds have a top and a bottom in most decks)
• Playing a card whose face value is equal to the product of the face values of the two cards previously played (mod 13).

Actions

• Announce the name of the card being played
• Announce the suit only of the card being played
• Announce an incorrect name of the card being played (e.g., if the six of diamonds is played, the player must name any card other than the six of diamonds.)
• Snap your fingers
• Give the dealer (or perhaps the person to your left or right) a high five
• Say a particular phrase
• Say part of a particular well known phrase. Each time the condition is consecutively met, add more of the phrase.
• Slap or knock on the table. If the condition is met on the next player's turn, that player must slap or knock one more time than the previous player did
• Convey the idea of a particular location in interpretive dance
• Convey an idea via mime alone
• Say (or sing) "Jim Morrison is dead" the first time a particular condition is met, and then each subsequent time the condition is met, the player must call "X is dead", where X is a well-known dead person whose name has not previously been used in that session of play. Special penalties apply to any player who calls "Chairman Mao is dead."
• Name an animal (vegetable, city, ...) that hasn't been named before in the game
• Name a word with length equal to the number on the card played
• Name a word starting with the letter that the last named word ended with
• Begin a mini-game in which players must take turns recreating a dialogue from a well-known movie, TV episode, etc. The first player who fails to correctly continue the dialogue suffers a penalty.
• Describe the card you play in terms of a 5/7/5 haiku

Game Effects

• Skip the next player's turn (or next two players' turns, etc)
• Create an additional 'play' pile
• Name a player (other than yourself); that player skips their next turn
• Reverse the direction of play (e.g., if it was proceeding clockwise, it now goes counterclockwise)
• A player may lay as many twos (or another type of card) as he has in his hand in one turn
• A player must play a second valid card or draw a card, effectively taking a second turn in a row
• Give the next player one (or two) card(s) from the top of the deck. If the next player fufils the same condition that triggers this rule, the next player is given two (or four) cards, with each subsequent player upping the penalty for the next one.
• A rule is only applicable after a certain condition is fulfilled (either only immediately after, for the rest of the round, until another condition is fulfilled, or the rest of the game)
• The top card has a new value, and the next person who plays must play as if the card on top was that value
• Give a card to anyone who does not perform a particular action
• A particular card is now "wild"
• Cards played by a player out of turn, while still earning that player penalty cards, still perform the special effect other rules might have established

From the "public rules" section:

'You may join or rejoin the game at any time by taking a place in the circle and drawing five cards. The object of the game is to eliminate all your cards. If someone catches you breaking a rule, they may give you a card from the draw pile with a statement of the offence. When you have eliminated all your cards, you say "Mao", which accrues you the right to introduce a new rule when you rejoin the game. You may introduce such a new rule by saying "new rule" and then enforcing infractions.'

---

I'm sure I can't be the only one who sees how ironic and problematic it is to find citations for the rules of a card game whose primary rule is that the rules can't be explained. I've played this game myself on more than one occasion, and can vouch for quite a few of the rules named in the article, but verifiable citations are going to be hard to come by. Bearcat 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I've been going with sheer quantity when I work on the references. If just one random Mao page on the internet says a rule is one way, that's a little iffy. If a half dozen different unconnected pages all say the same thing, though, that's a lot more solid. If we can manage verifiable articles about Freemasonry and Scientology, Mao shouldn't be impossible. :) Bryan 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added some of the content to the article that is now flagged as citation needed (such as the "In some variants, particular players are assigned particular titles" paragraph), and the "Questions" paragraph. I can personally testify that at least some people (me included) play the game using these features, but I'm not aware that any written source (much less any web page) documents them. I recognize the preferability of citing sources when they're available, but can there be a compromise in this case such as having the paragraph refer to "some variants" rather than "many variants" where no specific written source is available? Or would this again open the door to having the article include the endless laundry list of trivial rule variants?Spikebrennan 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it comes down to a question of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a foundation policy of Wikipedia and not a matter of preference. If no previously published source exists anywhere for a particular fact, then we just plain can't accept it. How would a random editor who comes along in the future be able to determine what was really encountered in a Mao game and what was just made up out of thin air? Bryan 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(checks cited official policy...) Hm. Interesting. You're right, of course. The policy is very clear, and it squarely resolves the issue in favor of excluding such information. I guess it's back to Talk:Mao (game) purgatory for that stuff.Spikebrennan 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other wikis out there more amenable to original research such as this? I've only ever had eyes for Wikipedia, myself, but I understand that there's been rather a proliferation of other topic-specific wikis recently. :) Bryan 05:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Card/Mao

My group plays it so that when you only have one card in your hand, you say Mao, and when you play the last card, you say "I win". I was guessing that this was just a singular mutation of the norm until I checked one of our references: [3] which supports the way my group plays. Think this should be mentioned in the article? Fieari 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My group says "One Card" when they have one card left (like Uno) and says "Mao" when they win.

Speaking of variations on the Mao rule, my favourite is that saying "Mao" in any context other than winning the game incurs five one-card penalties: talking, lying, cheating, swearing, and speaking the name of the Glorious Leader. ~ CZeke 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How I see the game

Mao is a unique game; few other card games are as dynamic. It is because of the constant challenge of deducing the ever changing rules that I love this game. It is for this challenge that I play mao, not for some sadistic ego stroke that others do. It is should never be treated as a practical joke. Experienced mao players will attest to just how difficult it can be to find people willing to play the game for more than a few seconds. Though outwitting experienced players is where much of the fun comes from, you will never get the fun of playing other good players if you drive away new players with sadistic rules, inconsistent calls, and enfuriating taunts at the other players' performance early on. While I have a deap respect for this games intrinsic need for secrecy, I give a more than standard briefing to new players. I tell them to get rid of their cards, that if they want to talk, they need to declare point of order, and then advise them to try to understand why something strange has happened, instead of becoming angry and suspicious. Many traditionalists would disagree with this approach because they feel that these are going much too far in giving away the game.

My position is a compromise, due to the lack of mao players that I find, and my previous stance that the whole enjoyment of the game comes from the superiority that one feels at starting with no knowledge what-so-ever and eventually mastering the beginning rules. But I've found that this reason to play doesn't lead to nearly the same level of enjoyment as outwitting a similarily skilled player. The challenge, which the mao player claims to value so highly is not there when you only play new players, drive them away, and find a new crowd to punish with gratuitous penalty cards and megalomaniacle glee at your temporary superiority.

I suppose that is enough background to state my point. What can posting the rules on the internet do to hurt the mao experience? Well, it certainly does cheapen the principal of mao, since many players who are intrigued by the game, but haven't yet figured it out will be tempted ot go to the internet and find the answer to their problems. However, this player is not hurting your enjoyment of mao. He is certainly taking away any value in his accomplishments by skipping over he spoiler warning in this article, but what do you care? You will now face a more knowledgeable player, and the challenge, which you so love, is now greater.

I think the spoiler is enough to keep the honest mao player from forever ruining his own experience by reading the rules, so I think we are safe on that front. However, all that said, I would certainly not provide the rules. I don't think they are a big danger, but they are not needed. When I had first learnt the game, I loved it, but for over a year, could not find others to play with. By the time I did, I had forgotten the rules. Now, here's the thing that I think coolest about the game: I looked hard on the internet, and could not find the rules anywhere. That is the biggest indicator of respect for the game that I can think of. I found a sample game posted, and from there deduced for myself, as the game intended the rules of their variation, and that is all I've used since. I've spread the game to dozens of people the hard way, and, I believe, the only way that preserves the spirit of the game.

So, I say that leaving the rules with the spoiler should be acceptable to most people. However, aother option would be to simply have links to sample games, where the rules can be figured out or not. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.195.132 (talk • contribs)

So, basically, your position is that we could do things differently but that the current approach to the article is also okay? Okay. :) Bryan 06:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a whole lot of angry back and forth on this talk page mostly stemming from, what I believe to be, a poor idea of what mao is about and the values that a mao player needs to be able to play and enjoy mao to the fullest. It is a defense of how things are. I tried to show why it is a big issue among some that the rules are posted, while explaining why it should be alright for the vast majority of players.

[edit] Mao Master

I'm considering potentially expanding upon this in the article, but would like people's thoughts on it before I do(if I do :P). In the variant of Mao my group descended from, the Maomaster(or whatever term the group chooses to call the position) is an extremely important role, vital as far as I had seen it, and I was surprised upon initially reading this article to discover that not all Mao groups used them. I know of at least 8 other groups in various places around the U.S. who are descended from the same roots mine was(somewhere in California), though I must confess to being completely clueless as to our...lineage for lack of a better word :P. I know who I learned from, and who they learned from, but no further back than that....anyway.

The concept of the Maomaster in our group is that they are the dealer who comes up with their own set of rules that all must follow. He/she deals out penalties, and generally leads the game. They are the ONLY person who knows their own rules initially, and all penalties are given by them except for the ones due to them for breaking one of their own rules (whether by mistake or otherwise...).

Once other players have played long enough to really have the hang of the game and know that Maomaster's rules, they may be ready to become one themselves. A Maomaster has to be very skilled and very attentive because they are responsible for catching EVERY slip, no matter how slight. This generally means that a player should tutor under an existing Maomaster for a time before attempting to lead a game, but once they have become a Maomaster they should create their own set of rules so as to promote the spread of the game and give variety.

People generally tend to follow a leader, and it takes a load off of the experienced players so they can concentrate on playing, except for them being able to catch the Maomaster if he/she slips up. Also having an oppressive, sadistic leader who is responsible for the laws you're having to follow completely follows the idea of Chairman Mao and makes the game twisted and interesting. I'm not certain quite yet how I would word all this in the article, but as a longtime Mao player/Maomaster now I feel a need to somehow have that role expounded upon a bit more than it has been. Thoughts? RhettSarlin 07:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you start adding anything to the article about the variant that your group plays, the number one most important thing is finding some sort of external source or reference describing it so that other users can verify your additions. You may have noticed that many of the rules currently listed on this article are encrusted with lots of footnotes, this is because the secretive nature of the game makes it hard to write an article conforming to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research otherwise. I've been slowly whittling down the unreferenced stuff over time, it'd save me a lot of work if new material is added with references for it already available. :) Bryan 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of your problem on that as well, which was what prompted me to inquire in here first. I have a mild problem with "references" personally when it comes to mao, as no reference really can have any more validity or authority for mao than an individuals claims about the game :P. I haven't a clue where to find a reference for my experiences with the game as I personally have never seen a published work on the subject. Prior to reading this article a year or so ago I wasn't aware that the game was widespread enough for people to have written about it. Perhaps I should create one myself and then reference it? :P Would that satisfy requirements? 216.255.215.234 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always been a bit of a borderline case on this article, but the only alternative I can see (barring the discovery of a better reference, perhaps a book on card games that describes Mao or something like that) is to simply remove all the rule stuff outright. I don't think that's warranted, though. I attempted to overcome the low quality of our current references by cross-referencing everything between as many of them as possible, hoping that quantity will make up for it.

Anyway, your proposal to publish and then cite yourself also seems a little borderline. Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself doesn't seem to be focused on this particular sort of thing, so I can't find any guidance there. Personally, I'd say go ahead and publish a website somewhere describing the rules of your particular variant and then give it a link. We may only really need to add a few lines, along the lines of "in some variants the rules are made up entirely by the dealer, who is responsible for issuing all penalties." The important thing is for future readers and editors to be able to find out where that information comes from so they can judge its plausibility accordingly. Bryan 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao and Mao Zedong

If it is true that the first reference to the game under the name of 'Mao' was in 1899, then I highly doubt it is named after Mao Zedong, given that he was, at most, six years old. He didn't join the Communist Party until 21 years later.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No kidding... 142.239.254.20 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal plays

When someone makes an illegal play, do they take the card back into their hand, or does it stay on the top of the pile? I've always played it as taking the card back, but can't actually see this being explicitly stated either way in this article or any of its sources. --McGeddon 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad plays are not left to stand, they are always retracted. The card involved in the dispute is returned to the player, if it is found that they have played illegally. Usually the call is "bad card" or "playing out of turn." In some cases "bad card" might be inappropriate, for example if a new rule allows or requires that in some circumstances cards be played two at a time. In these cases I suggest a call of "bad play." Iamgrim 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In my practice, if a rule requires a player to play two cards, and the player plays only one, then after a suitable pause the player is given a penalty card and the call "delay of game". "Delay of game" is the call for whenever a player fails to play within a suitable period after it becomes their turn. Spikebrennan 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, that seems fair. In the version I play, the equivalent call would be "failure to play" which is subtly different, but which still seems accurate, if misleading, in the case described. (I'm sure there are still cases where "bad play" could be a useful call if the concept of what a "play" is gets screwed around with a lot.) Iamgrim 13:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on article and inclusion of rules

[edit] Keep article; keep rules

I briefly read this comment page... But I did read the entire article.

I am frankly impressed. I have been playing Mao for two years, having the rules from two generatiosn up and having passed them down two generations. The rules in this article are 90 % concordant with the rules we use in our version. However, I will still not change my version, because it is the tradition that makes this game. I do love the concept of a "master player" who decides the rules, concept which may prove invaluable in a game where two people from different rulesets play together.

As much as I disapprove the rules being told in any shape, way of form, I do not think that is a reason to remove them from Wikipedia, as this would go against Wikipedia's principles...

However, I hereby give my full support to this article. Mao (game) is a very real concept, experienced by many people worldwide and should thus stay on Wikipedia, even if some people have never heard of it, as that is also an essence of Wiki : to come learn what you know nothing about. The PA 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

if everyone has to figure out their own rules how are you sure these rules are all correct--67.64.254.5 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the rules will be obvious by the end of the first game. When I played, it was permissible to talk about the "standard" rules after your first game. Bluap 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

LOADS OF THE RULES STATED IN HERE ARE WRONG! I STARTED CORRECTING A FEW, BUT THERE'S TOO MUCH WRONG RULES IN HERE TO CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--ItsJodo 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the secretive nature of the game, it has unsurprisingly fractured into a large number of variants. No one has been able to produce evidence of an original source which could be described as canonical. (If you can provide a citation to a reliable source, please do!) Given that, you can't really describe any given set of rules as "wrong." Given the fragmented nature of the game, several editors have done an exceptional job tracking down citations. Almost all of the rules you see here can be traced to one or more sources and are cited. So before radically changing things, check out the provided citations, and understand that you'll be expected to provide citations of your own if you add different rules. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

MOST OF THE RULES THAT I KNOW ABOUT ARE NOT STATED IN THIS ARTICLE.--ItsJodo (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealers & Special Players

I'd like to propose that this section be deleted, as the practices described seem far removed from normal practice. The assertions made are also contradicted by citations. I'll go ahead shortly unless anyone objects? Iamgrim 13:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection. It's sort of shoehorned in an odd place, to boot. Bryan Derksen 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely removing it is a little exessive. While I personally don't know of most of the varients, the dealer themself is most DEFINATELY a special character in the game, and often referred to with special titles. I origionally left the other ones there just because they were already there. I personally have no idea how common the other special players are, so I left them.

As far as placement, I tried to keep things in order of importance or occurance. That is established before even starting a game, and is thus before most of the 'rules'. If you don't like how it's worded, just edit it. But I wouldn't remove the Dealer. Pakratt0013 11:49, 19 May 2007

The dealer is the only person that has a major role in the game. The way I play Mao is only the dealer has a major role, and there is NOT ONE SPECIAL PERSON!!!!!!! But, of course, that is how I play Mao. I have never heard about special people in the game, though.--ItsJodo 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonality of varried rules

I've been considering editing the page to show commonalities of various rules, expecially the speaking rules. Mainly, I want to seperate it into 'Common', 'Uncommon'and, possibly, 'Suggested' rules for the speaking part. For the 'suggested' part, which is optional, I'm thinking more of rules possibly added later...common, or at least good, optional rules to mess with peoples heads.

I know that there are many varients, and the way we play is going to be obviously very different from the way anyone else plays, seeing as that's the nature of the game. So before I do anything, I need some votes here. I need to know how common each of the listed rules are to your local varient. If enough votes come in, we can determine which ones are the most 'common' rules and which aren't.

Now I'm not talking about which card does what. That changes WAAAY to often. I'm more about what the action is that's taken. The version I personally play only has half the cards accurate to this list, much less the actions taken.

So lemme get some votes here. Not long descriptions of your own rules, just whether or not you even have that rule in your base gameplay. Pakratt0013 5:15, 23 May 2007

vote removed due to wiki rule violation of no origional research Pakratt0013

I'm sympathetic to the idea, but I believe it is original research. (That research being, "Find out what rules are more common among Wikipedia editors.) Wikipedia policies ask that Wikipedia include no original research. A better solution would be to do the research yourself elsewhere (say, by contacting people on Usenet or online forums, putting up a survey and spreading the word, or just comparing rules as found online), the write up a page about it, and mention that it exists here. Then other editors can decide if it's a good reference and include the results here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Voting on which of these rules are "common" or not is completely the wrong way to go about this, IMO. What we need are external sources and references for which ones are common. A while back I added a lot of references for individual rule sets, perhaps an approach one might take is to collect as many of these rule sets from various sources as possible and compare them to determine which rules are common across them. Bryan Derksen 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for anyone tempted to go the route suggested by Derksen: Move the current inline <ref>erences to specific rules into a dedicated last. Then in the <ref>erences say things like "Most rule sets forbid speaking during the game<ref>JonBob 2001, Jefferis, and Holtzapple include a "no speaking" rule, while Overby 2002 does not.</ref>". (I have no idea if those pages say any such thing; it's just an example.) Dungeons & Dragons is an example of the general style; I'm just suggesting listing all of the rules sets in each <ref>erence, sorted into those that have a given rule and those that don't — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well...had a feeling that would violate some rule of Wiki. Thanks for the update. I'm learning the perticulars slowly, but learning. I'll work on the research as time allots, updates to follow.Pakratt0013 12:03, 28 May 2007

[edit] Too many rules

I think this article has too many rules in the sense that some of them are not verifiable. I am not saying we should remove them, but rather that the rules in this article should have at least one citation. Many variants of Mao exist, and it seems that people are just posting the rules in their version. As a result, I propose that only rules that can be cited should be included in this article. Youngdude 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've done occasional cleaning of this article along those lines in the past and it's worked well, but over time it starts accumulating more again. Bryan Derksen 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning? Where?

I see how Mao players might be against displaying the rules of the game online, and they have every right to this opinion. But this is an encyclopedia, it is meant to cover anything and everything... and that includes even what is meant to be secret.

Hence, I think it is fine to leave the rules of Mao on this page, as long as there is an adequate warning beforehand so that anyone who wants the full experience of the game can stop reading then and there.

But did it not occur to anyone that there is not actually a spoiler warning anywhere on this page? It wouldn't be too much trouble to add one of those boxes right before the rules section, and it would solve a whole lot of problems.

Obliterate57 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There were many attempts at spoiler warnings on this page, but have been many times removed. A simpler warning is currently in place in the first line of the "rules of Mao" section. It currently seems to satisfy.Pakratt0013 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some insightful thoughts

(I should say in advance, I haven't read all of the comments on this talk page, so I apologize if someone has already brought up this opinion.)

I understand that one of the highlights of the game of Mao is that the rules are forbidden to be told. But this is only to make the game more interesting, while you are playing it. In my opinion, it doesn't really do any harm to write the rules down for your own reference, or to post them online, especially since there are so many different versions of the game. A person who has never played before would not gain any advantage from reading this article, other than the fact they would know the trick of how the game works. They could still easily be confuzzled whenever they play the game, by alternate rules being introduced, or something new they weren't expecting. Plus, on another note, the rules should at least be written down somewhere, else they will become lost with time.

While I am here, I might as well mention my other thoughts on the game. Ironically (as I am judging the game based only on what I have read in its article and talk page), I have never actually played Mao before. I came upon this article searching for interesting card games I could play with my friends, and became hooked solely by my interest in the "secret" aspect of Mao. The problem is, though, I find my position concerning the game rather awkward. I don't know of anyone who plays the game, so there is really no easy way for me to get started on it. I could introduce it to my friends, I suppose... but how would I play it with them, without seeming as if I were making up the rules as I went along? In fact... unless I had carefully planned it out and made up my own set of rules, I probably would be making them up as I went along. Plus, if I don't want to make up my own set of rules, if I want to play the Waterloo variant for example, because I find it extra exciting... there is no definite way I could find out the rules of this game without playing it -- as no one is allowed to tell them! And there is no way I could play it, to try to figure it out, if I have no one to play it with! In my opinion, Mao players are a bit too strict on the subject of secrecy. The game should be, in all simplicity, fun. Someone should write a concise copy of the rules for various strands of the game, so I can go there to figure it out, then introduce it to my friends confidently. This might as well be Wikipedia. Again, posting the rules of different variants would only be helpful to the dealer, for the other players would have no idea which variant was being played.

(Sorry, haha... I tend to be overly wordy. It's only, I like to express myself as clearly and accurately as possible. I hope it isn't overbearing.)

Thanks, Obliterate57 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you didn't read the rest. Please read the rest. As for starting your own game, contact me, and I'll set you up. Pakratt0013 19:13, 27 June 2007

Agreed with Pakratt. Please note that the issue isn't about what sort of Wikipedia content article would be helpful to players vs. helpful to dealers; the issue is about ensuring that the content of this article is in keeping with generally-applicable Wikipedia standards. These include WP:CITE. The main reason that article text about particular rules gets deleted from the article is that the text can't be verified. Spikebrennan 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?!

I noticed quite a few "Citation Needed" markers all throughout this page and was thinking: although they are probably necessary, they seem rather absurd to be there; I mean, could it even be remotely possible to give an actual citation for most (if not all) of the stuff in this entry, mainly due to the nature of the game itself? Daisenji —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.248.16 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can't cite it, regrettably, we can't report it. Otherwise how can we know the difference between actual claims and stuff that was made up? — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Love This Game!!!

Who else loves this game as much as me?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.204.195 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section states that Mao is possibly descended from Mau Mau, which Wikipedia dates to at least the 1930s; it then states that Mao is more probably descended from Eleusis, which dates from the late 1950s. The history section then goes on to produce a reference to a short story by Arthur Machen, from 1899, which mentions "the Mao Games". Was Machen talking about this Mao, or another Mao? If he was talking about another Mao, which Mao was he talking about? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't suspect anybody really knows. JulesH (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End game rules

The article currently does not explicitly state what happens when a player has played all their cards, but implies that at this point the game is over and a new round is dealt. This is not the way any of the several variants of Mao I've played work, which usually allow the other players to continue and the winning player to rejoin the game whenever they wish. JulesH (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way to get around the rules restriction

Perhaps the article could be rewritten to describe the progress of a sample game, leaving the reader to deduce the rules for themselves, as would be the case in a real life game? -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This argument was hashed out years ago. Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Mao, nor does Wikipedia have any compelling interest in concealing the well-documented rules of the game. The article about grapefruit doesn't instruct the reader to grow his own grapefruit and come to his own conclusions: it describes what a grapefruit is, how it is classified, what it is used for and so forth, in great detail.--CorbettGM (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)