One of the most important principles in any system, game, workplace, relationship, organization, or society is surprisingly simple, as follows.
The rules of engagement should be established before the engagement begins, ensuring complete sign off and agreement between all parties.
The reason is equally simple as when the rules change in the middle of the game, the person changing the rules automatically becomes correct by default. All of this while the changer of the rule is now correct, that makes everyone else suddenly wrong despite following the rules that existed when the game started.
- That change is not about fairness in any way.
- That delta is not designed for consistency.
- That adjustment is certainly not how trust in our world is built.
- That alteration is only to make one party right by choice and the other wrong.
Imagine a Game of Basketball
Suppose two teams begin a basketball game under the standard set of published and advertised rules (e.g. the NBA Rulebook of 2025/2026). Then all of a sudden, midway through the third quarter of a random game, the leagues governing body announces that three-point shots are now worth five points each. Every basket made before that moment was evaluated under one standard (3-points) and then now, every basket after the announcement is evaluated under another standard (5-points). The players and teams spent the entire game and season to that point developing strategies around the original rules immediately find themselves disadvantaged.
- Nothing about their performance changed
- Nothing about their preparation changed
- Nothing about the team structure changed
- Nothing about their drafting changed
The only thing that changed was the measurement system and reference to previous achievements. The outcome may now favor whoever the rule was created for and in this case the team that is the better “5-point” shooters. The principle applies far beyond just the game when it was changed, because every previous 3-point score needs the additional 2-points added to it. The cascading impact is immeasurable, because someone decided they wanted more points.
Laws, Rules, Statutes, and Regulations Work Best When They do not Change at Random
In my opinion, one reason stable legal, social, and government systems are valuable is that they allow us to understand a fixed set of boundaries before, during, and after acting. People make decisions based on these sets of boundaries because they know they exist, have studied them, and they can be measured against accurately.
- Businesses make investments
- Families make financial plans
- Organizations develop policies
- Communities establish expectations
- Juries are informed
- Police write tickets
- Judges assign rulings
- Media members author articles
- Social influencers document happenings
- Pundits deliver speeches
- Protestors hold walkouts
- Unions schedule strikes
If the standards constantly change after decisions have already been solidified, advertised, and agreed to… then confidence in the system erodes almost immediately. People stop focusing on following the rules and start focusing on how they can apply their newly introduced rules to past occurrences. That is a very different environment and one that makes people or acts violate wrongs that never existed during the original act.
Figuratively: Moving Goalposts
I am guessing that I am not the only person to have experienced a version of this in everyday life. If a manager changes priorities after a project is delivered and accepted by the customer, then work using the new priorities instead of the ones originally assigned as requirements is judged incorrectly.
Imagine any of the following happening.
- A teacher changes grading standards after assignments are 100% complete and submitted.
- A customer changes requirements after a work product is delivered and accepted.
- A committee changes evaluation criteria after candidates have already applied.
In each case, frustration comes from the same place or origin. The participants were attempting to succeed according to one set of documented expectations. Then those expectations were retroactively altered to benefit another.
I have noticed that the expression “moving the goalposts” exists for this exact reason.
When the goalposts move, achievement becomes difficult to measure because success was defined differently at the start.
Rules Are More Important Than Outcomes
An interesting observation is that many people only object to changing rules when the changes hurt them or their social group. However, rules should matter regardless of who benefits as they were already ratified. If fairness only matters when we lose, then fairness does not actually matter at its core.
A healthy system is one where participants agree that the process itself should be stable and predictable even when the outcome is not personally favorable. After all, nobody can win every time, and everyone should be able to know how the game is being played in advance.
Apply this to Employment, Contracts, and Government
- Organizations function best when expectations are clearly defined.
- Employees are best understanding how performance will be measured.
- Vendors must understand contractual obligations.
- Citizens need to understand laws and regulations.
When expectations are communicated up front, participants can make informed decisions. They may not always agree with the rules, but they know what they are agreeing to because it is not a blank check. I notice that disputes often arise not because a rule exists, but because people believe the rule should be changed to benefit them.
Change Is Necessary, Timing Matters
This does not mean rules should never change as every system eventually requires updates.
- Technology evolves
- Society progresses
- Populations grow
- Tools advance
- Norms become rejected
- Budgets are created
- Organizations evolve
- Laws expand
The issue is not whether change should occur… I feel like the issue is when the change should take effect combined with new rules regarding how to apply the change.
A fair system typically says: “These are the current rules and future engagements will use the new rules, starting on XYZ date.”
An unfair system says: “Those were the rules when you started, but we have retroactively decided to judge you using a different set now, because it benefits me to make this change.”
The difference may sound subtle, but it is enormous to me. One respects informed participation while the other rewrites history to benefit the rewriter.
Trust Is Built on Consistency
At its core, this principle is really about trust…
- People are willing to participate in systems they believe are consistent.
- Employees trust organizations that evaluate performance according to known standards.
- Citizens trust governments that apply laws consistently.
- Customers trust businesses that honor advertised terms.
- Players trust games that enforce the same rules for everyone.
Once people begin to suspect that the rules can change at any moment, to benefit someone else, confidence declines. Participation becomes more cautious, more defensive, and less collaborative because I believe that nobody enjoys playing a game where the scoreboard operator can change the point values whenever they want to benefit the team they want.
An Illustrative Example: Retroactive Vehicle Standards
Imagine if the federal government of the United States announced tomorrow that every vehicle seeking registration must be equipped with modern airbags and seat belts. On its face, that may sound reasonable because both safety features have proven value over time.
Now imagine the rule applied not only to newly manufactured vehicles, but also to every automobile and truck ever built, including vehicles produced decades before airbags or seat belts even existed. Owners of antique cars, vintage trucks, junk yards, historical collections, and museum vehicles would suddenly be required to retrofit equipment that was never part of the original design. Many vehicles could not be modified without substantial cost, engineering changes, safety evaluations, or destruction of their historical authenticity. Others might become impossible to register altogether, even if for mere posterity in a museum.
The issue would not necessarily be whether airbags and seat belts are good ideas and add to a safer society. Most people would likely agree that they are exactly that. The controversy would arise because the standard would be applied retroactively to vehicles that were designed, manufactured, sold, purchased, and operated in compliance with the rules that existed at that time.
A prospective rule would say: “All vehicles manufactured after this date must include these safety features.”
A retroactive rule would say: “Even though your vehicle complied with every requirement when it was built and purchased, we are changing the standard and judging your past compliance by today’s requirements.”
This example highlights the distinction between improving a system and rewriting the conditions under which people originally participated in that system. The debate is often not about whether the new standard is better, but whether fairness allows that standard to be applied to actions, products, convictions, judgements, or decisions that predate its existence.
Final Thoughts
The most successful legal systems, organizations, and social structures are not necessarily the ones with the most rules. They are often the ones with the clearest and most consistent rules that are universally applied.
- Before an engagement begins, establish the expectations clearly and concisely.
- Before a game starts, define the scoring system on paper.
- Before a contract is signed, define the obligations for all parties involved.
- Before a law is enforced, define the standards at which it can be measured and for whom it applies to.
When everyone knows the rules beforehand, people can focus on the engagement itself. When the rules change in the middle, only the rule-maker wins and in any system that values fairness, that should be a warning sign.