# Two-Point Compersion

Originally published: 2016-01-24
Canonical URL: /2016/Jan/two-point-compersion/

"I don't get it."

"Yeah, I guess the rules are kind of complicated, but—"

"No, I mean, I think understood the literal content of your explanation, but I don't understand how the behavior you describe could arise from the rules as stated. What stops teams from just cooperating with each other?"

"Cooperating? What do you mean?"

"You say advancing the ball to the other side of the field is a _touchdown_ worth six points?"

"Yes, plus a point-after kick or two-point conversion attempt."

"So why don't the teams just take turns scoring touchdowns?"

"What? Why would they do that?"

"To score points. You said that was the objective of the game."

"Oh, ah—I didn't realize I needed to explain this part—the goal is to get _more_ points than the other team. The team with more points is called the winner of the game, and the other team loses."

"So it's a _zero-sum_ game?"

"Well—yes."

"But that's barbaric!"

"That's ... not _usually_ the reason people call football barbaric."

"Lower animals fight over fixed resources, the power to _create_ opportunities lying far beyond their abilities and even their concept-space. But you, living at the dawn of your world's intelligence, you have the rare opportunity to build _new_ worlds—and share the proceeds between you. And you waste your energy on this contrived imitation of a payoff matrix that it is your birthright to supersede! It is revolting."