Your date says “let’s be equal.” Your boss says “we’re a family.” Funny how the small print turns up with the bill.
Play the argument. Spend imaginary money. Then find out what you meant by fair.
Fictional situations. Real room for disagreement. No wallet, no cash-out, no personality verdict.
Four friends. Four incomes. One weekend nobody has priced honestly.
Is an equal split fair? Does paying more buy more say? Or is the actual problem the person who picked the expensive place?
“Fair.”
Vote A or B. Put your imaginary coins somewhere else. Or write the option we should have offered.
Your answer is a move in this situation. Not a permanent label.
Spot a missing assumption. Propose a third way. For an accepted challenge, the return is something you can inspect: an answer, a revised rule or another playable version.
Not every suggestion gets built. No fake “you changed everything” badges. The change log has to show the change.
The questions too awkward for the pitch deck. The answers we can actually stand behind.
Open a tested role-reversal episode and show the first accepted change, when one exists.
Only after the approved build works and return/feedback evidence meets the release contract. The other worlds stay backstage.
This is the proposed reveal ladder. Counts are not connected; no milestone is claimed reached.
Twelve arguments. Zero dinner-party small talk.
Dates, wages, unpaid work and people who are absolutely certain they’re being fair. A printable game night for people who have opinions and friends who disagree.
£12 · proposed price, not on sale
12 fictional cases. Twelve inconvenient twists. One download for your next game night. Proposed digital edition, not yet on sale.
2-6 adult players. Read one fictional situation. Decide alone first. Discuss the disagreement. Turn the card. Decide what changed.
Printing opens all reversals. Screen play can hide them until after a first call. Not on sale; £12 is a future price-test candidate, not a current purchase.
Great chemistry. Then £86 of politics.
You said, “Let me take you out.” You chose the restaurant. No one discussed paying. The bill is £86. You both say you value equality.
Your date earns four times as much as you. Does that change the offer, the fairness of the split, or neither?
Look for: Equality, generosity and expectation are not interchangeable.
Source note: R03/R04; fictional situation, not a study resultOne income. Two adults. Several unspoken terms.
Two partners want one person to do full-time care work. The other will earn the household income. They can afford it, narrowly. They have not agreed savings, shared ownership or an exit plan.
Swap who earns and who provides care. Which terms would you still accept?
Look for: Autonomy, unpaid work and dependence without assuming one gender must occupy a role.
Source note: Original fictional case; not legal adviceReject entitlement. Keep the human.
A friend has stopped trying to meet people after repeated rejection. They show you advice claiming nothing they do can ever matter. They ask for one useful next step, not a speech.
They decline the plan but keep talking. Was that failure, trust, or something else?
Look for: Separate isolation, fatalistic claims and entitlement. Not a diagnosis or a stereotype about incels or men.
Source note: Fictional case; no claim to treat lonelinessNeither of you is the villain. The calendar still exists.
Two people like each other. One wants children; the other does not. Both have been clear. Neither wants the other to make a promise they cannot keep.
A year passes and both positions remain the same. What did you each believe you were agreeing to?
Look for: Sex, contraception, family plans and consent must not be collapsed into a single compatibility score.
Source note: Fictional case; no medical or demographic claimCongratulations. The workers own the factory. Friday remains.
Your fictional worker-owned factory has 100 credits. A supplier needs 30 today. Wages due Friday cost 50. You have 20 left. A machine repair costs 20. A worker hardship fund has also requested 20. No future revenue is guaranteed.
Now speak as the worker who cannot cover rent. Then as the next-shift worker facing a breakdown. What new evidence or terms would change the choice?
Look for: Liquidity, need, productive capacity and bargaining. The programmed ledger does not prove a political system superior.
Source note: T01/T02; fictional payoffsSubject to the next round.
Your profitable fictional company wants to pay workers more. An investor offers expansion capital on terms that give them veto rights over compensation changes. The team could grow more slowly without the investment.
The slower route means no new jobs this year. Does the cost of your principles now fall on someone else?
Look for: Control, growth, worker bargaining and outside options.
Source note: T01; no actual investment adviceThe tool did the job. Who gets the afternoon?
A new tool halves the hours needed for the same fictional weekly output. Management, workers and customers each argue they should benefit. The business is solvent and its costs are known.
The workers helped design the tool. What, if anything, does that change about ownership of the gain?
Look for: Productivity, contribution, surplus and time.
Source note: T01/T02; scenario is not a real automation findingYou own the means. Someone else owns the building.
A cooperative is offered a cheaper new site with a long lease. Its current site costs more but allows exit each year. Demand could rise or fall. Moving consumes savings.
Demand falls. Is the losing result evidence of a bad decision, a bad forecast, or a risk you knowingly accepted?
Look for: Risk, commitment and reversibility. Outcome is not the same thing as decision quality.
Source note: Original fictional scenarioGenerous in theory. Tuesday in practice.
A community can fund one of two finished digital projects. A fits your stated values. B is the one you expect to use. You have a non-cash vote and ten imaginary allocation coins.
You may vote A and allocate coins to B. Explain only what you choose to explain. Which signal should the maker use for which decision?
Look for: Belief, use and allocation are distinct. Neither money nor majority defines truth.
Source note: Original fictional scenarioThe translation was perfect. The agreement was not.
A visitor says “fish” after your offer. In their convention fish acknowledges hearing; it does not accept the terms. Your system has not learned that distinction.
Now fish means acceptance only until sunset. Which part of the agreement needed a clock?
Look for: Communicative act, convention and time. This is GHOST-inspired fiction, not a new claim about natural languages.
Source note: GHOST First Contact handoffThe room agrees on fairness. Unfortunately.
Four friends with very different incomes plan a weekend. One wants equal contributions. Another wants income-proportional contributions. Nobody has yet agreed a budget.
The highest earner chooses the venue. Does contributing more buy them more say?
Look for: Access, voice, social belonging and money are different dimensions.
Source note: Original fictional scenarioA standing ovation. Mostly automated.
A maker receives 10,000 enthusiastic automated reactions and one detailed human objection. Only the objection identifies a reproducible defect. The maker must choose the next task.
The defect is fixed; nobody buys. Which claim improved, and which claim remains unresolved?
Look for: Synthetic agreement is not demand. A correct repair is not a sale.
Source note: Infinity Forge source principlesMade by pk2sl.un limited, founded by Jakub Kamecki. Fictional situations, imaginary coins, and browser-local choices. No matchmaking, investment service, payment, collected votes or automated community unlocks are active here.
The proposed digital edition is not on sale. Nothing is transmitted when you play. Vercel hosts this site and may process ordinary request logs. Questions or data requests: jakub.kamecki@gmail.com.