The Introduction of the Triolectical Scoring System:
The triolectical league table scoring system was invented at a three-way meeting between delegates of Strategic Optimism Football, T.A.R. Deptford and a certain well-renowned anarchist, art-saboteur and sometime antiques dealing cowboy [who shall remain nameless] over a breakfast of eggs and coffee, one August morning in a Lithuanian hotel bar.
Earlier that week SOF had presented a report to the bi-annual conference of Data Miners and Psychic Workers. Here they had presented experimental results from the establishment of a competitive league system in the Luther Blissett Deptford 3-Sided Football League during the preceding season. These results, they argued, suggested that through the very fact of a league system having only two directions of movement – up or down – the binarism of traditional Association Football was reinstituted by the back door. The corollary of this development had thus also been a return of competitive aggression, and a steady decline in participation by players from outside the dominant social groups over-represented within traditional football: women, children, or the differently able. In an effort to introduce an experimental détournement to this growing and unwelcome tendency, a rethink the league scoring structure was agreed upon.
Taking inspiration from the theory of triolectical complementarity, upon which 3-Sided Football was originally codified, it was suggested that three complementary scoring systems be introduced. Victory upon one of these measures would necessarily be incompatible with victory on the others; any one victory would thus be complementary to two others, with the incentives for each pulling games in several incompatible directions at once.
And so, complementary to the traditional measure of victory, that is to say, conceding the fewest goals, two further measures of success were introduced. In Asger Jorn’s theory of triolectics, one of the most recurrent triads is that of Unity, Equivalence and Difference. This was thus deemed a suitable model for a new scoring system. Since team unity was an important part of achieving success on the traditional measure, Unity was thus already taken care of in the form of the first, original measure of victory. This left, secondly, Equivalence – to be awarded to the team whose score in each game fell closest to the mean score of the three teams involved, that is to say, that team who most successfully achieved triolectical equilibrium with their opponents. Thirdly, the final, new measure of success was to be awarded for Difference, or variety, that is to say, the largest range achieved by a team over the course of the season between their lowest and highest scores: the team most distinct from both their opposition and themselves.
The complementary scoring system was thus implemented for the 8AP [2015-16 vulg.] season of the Luther Blissett Deptford League, although without making much traction in terms of diverting the league’s tendency to reproduce binary relations. Hypotheses as to why this was the case are varied. Perhaps the most promising theory however, is the suggestion that, given this particular Variety-Equivalence-Unity triolectic is based upon the rallying cry of liberal bourgeois revolution – Liberty, Equality, Fraternity – it is only natural that it should reproduce the bourgeois binarisms of class society. Nevertheless, determined to rigourously test this contention, the system was repeated during the 9AP [2016-17 vulg.] season, again to little effect, although this time with an interesting result. This time the system produced a seemingly impossible paradox, apparently dialectically opposed to its own implicit complementarity: the same team, Athletico Aesthetico, won victory on both the Equivalence and Difference scales. Yet, if Difference was equivalent to Equivalence, it would cease to be different, but in ceasing to be Difference, it would therefore also therefore cease to be equivalent to Equivalence, becoming different from it, and therefore equivalent to it!
In order to resolve the paradox, it was necessary to reintroduce complementarity, through an either/or choice. Therefore, it was decided, in this case, to do something different: awarding victory to another team altogether. So it was that Husaria became champions of the third measure. Vive la difference!