Democracy (in Four Square)

21 Oct, 2024

Democracy¹ is hard. Many say it doesn't work well within the current US system -- how political parties are dividing America, the corruptness of certain judges, fraudulent elections, and so on.

Yet thinking about my elementary school days, I remember wall ball and four square especially being thriving places of democracy. When someone thought they got wrongfully out, or someone thought someone else held the ball for too long, or so on, the issue would be turned to the people -- those in line would decide the fate of the accused, whether that mean to get out or a redo².

Sure, factions arose. Some didn't like others, best friends stayed with best friends, and so "teams" that controlled the whole court rose up and four square looked more like a 2v2 or 3v1 when I played with my friends. Despite all of this, the firm democracy of letting the people decide remained -- whenever a dispute arose, it was always the line's job to decide who won and who lost. Even in times of anger and resentment, when friends betrayed friends, drama spilled over from the real world into the game, the line was constant -- grounding all players within the confines of the game, with the players knowing that any wrongdoing would (most likely) be caught by the line and they'd be sent out. A truly democratic system.

A substantial part of American law is intertwined with the idea of intent -- Did the killer know he was killing his victim? Did the person who accidentally deleted emails really want to hide evidence? Did that guy post remarks knowing they were defamatory? Clearly, intent is important in court. In law, there's this idea of "good faith," broadly meaning something done in good intent and without malice. I think the most well-known example of this good faith clause or whatever is in the Good Samaritan Clause or whatever which basically says that if you're really trying to save someone's life using CPR, and you break one of their ribs, you don't get charged because you were really trying to save that person. In every game, along with four-square, mistakes are made. People carry the ball for too long. People resort to dirty tactics to embarrass their peers and perhaps remove them from the game, at least temporarily. People accidentally step into another square. Mistakes are always made. Yes, even though the line judges those who are playing, and they technically do have an incentive at hand -- the faster people get out, the faster those in line get back in the game -- the ones in line do not judge with an iron fist. Perhaps as a child, intent is harder to hide. Or perhaps children know this is all a game and things are done in good fun. Or maybe children just have everything figured out. Either way, somehow, at such a young age, children have already grasped the idea of intent and know how to scale punishment based on intent. For example, if someone seems to have kind of had the ball slip in their hands while passing it, the line might let that person stay in as that wasn't intentional and a slight mishap. Yet when someone really dislikes someone else, and does something technically legal that's super unsportsmanlike, the line (as long as it's not corrupt) is sure to mandate that the aggressor be pulled out of the game. Democracy.

Perhaps children really do have everything figured out.

Anyways, I should acknowledge some interesting points about four square as it relates to democracy. First, usually multiple games are running at once, or you can always quit. Thus, games that are "corrupt" (where the majority are of the players know each other and just get their non-friends out with unsportsmanlike conduct) usually lose steam pretty quickly -- everyone just leaves for a better court with better rules. This helps contribute to the democracy part where bad rules/courts are simply eliminated because no one plays at them. Second, as is probably an assumption you made during all this (a supposition one might say), four square is not a high stakes game, and problems are eased over pretty quickly. Although I have definitely had strong convictions about who wronged who after a game, these stakes are not as high as, for example, an actual court case that has the capacity to repeal (or amend) a law.