  A broad current application of algorithms is in formal and quantitative
measures of murky concepts -- like merit -- to make decisions. When people
strategically respond to these sorts of evaluations in order to gain favorable
decision outcomes, their behavior can be subjected to moral judgments. They may
be described as 'gaming the system' or 'cheating,' or (in other cases)
investing 'honest effort' or 'improving.' Machine learning literature on
strategic behavior has tried to describe these dynamics by emphasizing the
efforts expended by decision subjects hoping to obtain a more favorable
assessment -- some works offer ways to preempt or prevent such manipulations,
some differentiate 'gaming' from 'improvement' behavior, while others aim to
measure the effort burden or disparate effects of classification systems. We
begin from a different starting point: that the design of an evaluation itself
can be understood as furthering goals held by the evaluator which may be
misaligned with broader societal goals. To develop the idea that evaluation
represents a strategic interaction in which both the evaluator and the subject
of their evaluation are operating out of self-interest, we put forward a model
that represents the process of evaluation using three interacting agents: a
decision subject, an evaluator, and society, representing a bundle of values
and oversight mechanisms. We highlight our model's applicability to a number of
social systems where one or two players strategically undermine the others'
interests to advance their own. Treating evaluators as themselves strategic
allows us to re-cast the scrutiny directed at decision subjects, towards the
incentives that underpin institutional designs of evaluations. The moral
standing of strategic behaviors often depend on the moral standing of the
evaluations and incentives that provoke such behaviors.
