If they explained the rubric for how you'd be evaluated, I might play. I'd probably play the game for fun and then politely withdraw. Or maybe not. I'd have to see how I feel, which means it's probably not a terribly objective interview.

given how bad most interviews are, do you really want to pass on a good job just because you didn't like their interview style?

ok, sure, given how unusual the idea of boardgames is, you don't risk much, but if i were to apply that same approach to interviews with trivia questions then i'd probably not find a job.

an interview would have to be outright offensive before i'd walk away. or i would have to be skeptical of that job already for other reasons and i just needed an excuse to drop it (the last straw sort of thing).

e.g. i can understand not wanting to go to a bar, but what's wrong with boardgames?

> do you really want to pass on a good job just because you didn't like their interview style?

Well, the problem is when you're interviewing, that you don't know if it's a "good" job. You and the company are trying to figure out if you're a fit or not, which is the whole point of the interview.

I have to say that I feel interviews are very telling of company culture, for both good and bad. If it's a good interview where they respect you, especially if those people will be the ones you'll work with, that's good signal. I've turned down job offers before because of bad interview experience, and felt like I've dodged a bullet. Sometimes I've taken jobs after having a bad interview experience (mostly because I know someone on the inside), and been burned.

An interview doesn't have to be outright offensive to ring enough alarm bells for me to not want to work there, although outright offensive is the loudest bell.

The problem with boardgames is they have very little to do with the job. I know plenty of people I would love to play boardgames with who I wouldn't want to work with, and visa-versa.

you are absolutely right, but i wouldn't hinge that on the fact that they are asking me to play a game during the interview, but how they go about it, how they behave, etc.

i happen to like boardgames, so it is harder for me to imagine the bad side of that, so instead, i'll share how i'd feel about going to a bar as part of the interview process, which is something i don't like.

first of all, i'd go, if the time allows. (if it's where i live, and i could be home with family, i'd decline, but if i am travelling, then ok) but i don't drink. and that's the test for me. some people are perfectly fine with having a non-drinker in their group. others aren't if i feel uncomfortable, it's a bad interview experience and i'll hopefully draw the same conclusions as you. but if they are a good sport about it, and respect my choices, then we may well get along.

now maybe you can translate that to boardgames. if they make you uncomfortable, the interviewers should either be able to make you feel at ease, or they aren't. you then draw your conclusions from that.

A company where they play 6-7 hours long game of thrones during lunch ...

In all seriousness, I would guess it implies other false-psychology nonsensical processes in place too. As evidenced by dude who they stopped to do code reviews for, because he had opinions. Would me behaving nicely imply more detailed nitpicks cause, well, I don't put up fight?

They correlated long term behavior with boardgame patterns that emerged over months of play. Therefore they expect themselves to be able to divine your long term behavior from an hour of playing a game you may or may not know in advance in situation where you are motivated to project charizmatic personality.

It also implies me having to project a lot of correct cultural nonsense to get ahead. You dont enjoy learning boardgame rules? You dont like learning new tech. You did not bonded over boardgame? You dont value culture.

Ugh.

indeed, one hour feels to short to actually get some good impressions.

at best it helps to see if this is something we could bond over. there is some value to that. having something non-work related that a team can bond over can help smooth over difficulties elsewhere.

as i wrote in another comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21364367 ) the game won't tell you how i will work, but, if we can have a good time over a board game then maybe you will realize that me being critical of your commits is not personal, and maybe you'll even work up the courage to ask me for advice instead of sulking and giving up, or starting an argument.

Me bonding with you over game does not mean your criticism of my commits is or is not personal. That is something I realize by comparing how you treat my commits vs somebody elses. By comparing what you say to feedback of other people and by comparing it to my own knowledge.

I realize that by seeing that the reviews are consistent, everybody is hold to the same stable standard and by seeing that differences of opinions are accepted with respect and open discussion.

Code review can be personal, can be about packing order, can be about someones autism, can be wrong and can be none of those things. Boardgame does not changes anything if you do the above, people will figure it out.

> maybe you'll even work up the courage to ask me for advice instead of sulking and giving up, or starting an argument

Why do I need courage to ask you? Why am I expected to be afraid of you? Why would a game cancel my reasons to be afraid and wouldn't it better to not scare me in the first place?

What if I am right, do I have to pretend ask for advice too? Why am I assumed to be the problem and left very little options how to act when we two disagree?

you are not assumed to be the problem. that's not what i am talking about. also, while objectively you are right, subjectively, every criticism feels personal. this may be easier to explain with an example from the weaker position:

if you criticize me, it feels personal. who is right, and who is wrong does not matter. we could even be both right. if the communication about work is all we have, and on top of that you are maybe a senior when i am a junior then i may well be intimidated by you, making it very difficult for me to talk to you to resolve the problem.

if on the other hand we also have an experience playing together, and in those times you appear as a very cooperative person, supportive when i make mistakes, etc, then my perception of you as a person as a whole changes, and you will be much less intimidating to me. maybe when i see you in a good mood after the game i find it a good opportunity to ask you about my last pull request.

there is of course no guarantee that that will work. but the point is, there is a chance. without that opening created through that atmosphere there is none.

to put it differently, games can be a team-building exercise. you can put other activities there, but that bonding is a critical part of a team that has difficult work to do where disagreements often need to be resolved. there has to be something that reminds us that we are still friends, and gives us the strength to pull through difficult moments.

on that last point, if you are right, and i am wrong, but i am your superior, then you are in a tough position. your only chance to resolve this peacefully is to rely on my good will to actually accept the truth. if that good will does not exist, you are taking a huge risk. you are going to have to find a diplomatic way to show me. and that includes listening to my reasoning, and asking me about how i would solve it.

so yes, even if you are right, you still need to ask, and not only pretend, you really need to ask and make a serious effort to understand my approach to solve the problem, and then, only then you can try to explain to me, using my own approach, why that is wrong, and why yours is better.

Huh, I have to say, I have much better supervisor then that. Most of them were better then that.

No boardgames needed.

And also, much better strategy is to tell what I think, bease then supervisors personality shows soon and I can figure it out and leave soon. If it takes courage and pretending to disagree, then it is good idea to work elsewhere.

It sounds like horrible way to do code reviews.

on second thought, you are right. if the supervisor is good then this situation would not even arise, and if they are bad, then the boardgame won't help.

the situation i was thinking of applies more to cases where the supervisor is remote and you have no personal contact.

so really the problem here is that in remote communication people come across differently than in person. they may actually act differently than in person, because they may not even be aware how they come across.

in such a situation knowing the supervisor through a different activity (and that could be to play boardgames at the yearly company meet) can make a difference.

i have seen this example from FOSS developers who got a certain reputation online, but came across very differently when i met them in person at a conference.

I can confirm that social aspects of remote work are difficult and we dont really know yet how to do it. Some regular excuse for socialization that is not work may help relationships and communication.