They can’t vote, so why would they care? Easy targets, no apparent consequences.

Edit: /s

I think the question “do the ends justify the means” is meant to invoke exactly what you’re describing. What you call the “desired end state” is what the question means by “the end.” The question is framing exactly what you’re saying: the path of reaching a desired outcome includes everything it takes to get there–is it still a desirable end? Is the entire path justified, given the intermediate consequences?

I’m guessing it’s worded this way because we apply this question/principle to situations where the “end” is altruistic but the “means” are not, and it’s specifically asked because people want to separate the two to ignore the moral/ethical implications of the means. The entire point of the question/principle is that the end cannot be separated from the means with regard to whether it is ethical.

They’re common in Canada as well. In my experience, they’re much better than larger banks for things like fees and interest rates.

Historically the main advantage of a larger bank was having banks and ATMs everywhere, but lots of CUs have formed mutual agreements for ATM access, and internet banking being ubiquitous has rendered any advantage the big banks have had moot (in my opinion, at least).

What does he do with them when he catches one?

Ending a game of Munchkin is almost impossible to do without upsetting the rest of the players. If you felt bad, that’s fair, but what you described is very much in the spirit of the game.

That’s totally on them for ignoring you. Sounds like getting knocked down a peg might have been good for that guy.

Related, Settlers is one of the two games that are banned at my family gatherings.

The Monopoly house thing is a bit of a dick move, but I wouldn’t feel bad about the Civ one–that seems legit.

Back when Words With Friends was big, I developed a reputation among my friend groups for being very good. I wasn’t terribly good, but I noticed there was no penalty for misspelling a word. So each turn, I’d try a bunch of high-scoring combinations that seemed like they might be words, and eventually one would work.

My family plays heavyweight games, and enjoy strategy (whether it’s a “strategic” game or not). We mostly get along well (though we’ve had to ban a couple games that got too heated too often), but we’re quite competitive and we put a lot of thought into games when we play.

My wife’s family is the polar opposite. They seem to enjoy passing cards or pieces around without much reason or goal (they often play pure-luck games). The first time I sat down to a game of Rummykub with them, I won the first three games in a row, and it wasn’t close. Fortunately I had the sense to pull back a bit, but then it was super boring. Finally I gave myself a new goal–each game, I mentally chose another player at the table and would subtly play to see if I could get them to win. I had about a 3/4 success rate on that, and the whole experience was more enjoyable for everyone.

Oh yeah, in that case I’ll echo the other commenter that suggested Mint.