Gaming for peace

[clyde]

When I see things like this, I begin to think of strategy-gamers as one of the world's most valuable resources. Kriegsspiel was created to win wars; the RAND corporation figured out how to win by assuring that all competitors will lose; and I believe that strategy-gamers will be the ones who actually figure out how to create sustainable and fair peace.
Does anyone else have these thoughts?

Anyone want to recommend strategy-games where a peaceful stalemate is a win condition?
 

[biz]

strategy is just the art of planning

 

the most common form happens to be adversarial games, but it can be applied to any goal

 

there are city-builders and tycoon games where the goal is to create 'order'

 

 

it's not "gamers" who are likely to accomplish something in a non-accidental manner, but rather people who can formulate plans to achieve goals

 

not all people who play "strategy games" know anything about planning or goals or optimization

[clyde]

I guess I should be more specific:
I think that the relationship between strategy-gamers and strategy-games has the potential to envision a relevant method of creating a sustainable and fair peace. Thus far, the broad public has only been exposed to social problems and systemic violence with anecdotes and opinion-pieces. Strategy-games are a way for the complexities of interrelated systems within systemic violence to be partially simulated enough for the broad public to begin to visualize the causal complexities in motion, rather than viewing examples of the symptoms as an unfortunate history. Games imply agency. There is the danger of inflating this sense of agency when Middle-Eastern political ecosystems are reduced to an enjoyable video game, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Strategy-games can provide the impetus to begin thinking of world-conflict and human-rights issues as puzzles; people love solving puzzles.

As you hear my perspective, make sure to consider the current situation (or at least my perspective of it), that the public already thinks about these issues, just not critically. I'm arguing that as the medium of strategy-games becomes more popular, the public will increasingly think of world-affairs as a simulation that can be played, rather than as a history.

[osmosisch]

The title of this thread automatically made me complete the classic "...is like fucking for virginity."

 

I guess this would involve less coitus though.

[clyde]

I find myself putting what I'm hearing about the current-events in Syria into Civ 5 terms. I fail to see how shooting a couple of guided-missles from some missle-cruisers is going to stop a civ from nuking again, while another civ is trying to take its capital. The losing/nuking civ is desparate. Making them more desparate is just going to encourage them to nuke again. The circumstances are dire. Is there anything a civ would be willing to trade for their last city?

I apoligize if this offends anyone. I don't intend to belittle the suffering of thousands (possibly millions) by comparing it to a game. I'm just concerned and this seems like a way for me to deal with my thoughts and worries. Games are my way of praying, I guess.

[clyde]

I'm struck by this idea again today. I woke up and decided to research whatever civilization Columbus conquered. I was motivated by spite. I wanted to find a youtube-video that expressed my frustration with the celebration of genocide.

I had a hard time finding documentatiom of what the Taino had to offer, what it is that Columbus took from us. I expected to find some dances and maybe some exotic system of math or a orgin-story that would put something in my own experience into a new perspective. But most of what I found was a discussion about the clash between the New-World and the Old-World (even those terms become suspect). I wanted to celebrate the Taino today, but only discovered what they meant in the context of Columbus's arrival.

This is where we get to the game-relevant stuff:

As I watched a few 10-minute segments of hour-long documentaries on Youtube about Columbus's arrival, I was struck by how much my perspective has changed in the last five years. I can't be sure that it is exposure to games that has caused the change, but I am curious. In 2008, I watched this type of stuff and just thought of Columbus as a racist, evangelical dick with weapons and a desire to maim for the fun of it. I blamed him. Now as I watch it, I think of Columbus as an object with behaviors within a game-system. I think that his identity and his circumstances determined the outcome (along with that of everyone else involved). Now, I blame the system, the way the elements interacted, the behaviors and rule-sets.

I wonder if this type of thinking comes from gaming. I wonder if it will become more common. I think it may be more affective in forwarding my agendas. The subject fascinates me.

[clyde]

I love looking through college libraries. All these delicate tomes of irrelevant conjecture. I go there for inspiration, I stay for the passion.

I found "Gaming: The Future's Language" by Richard D. Duke today. Section 1, "The Problem", was so good (until he starts talking about "Future Shock") that I ended up reading 60 pages of boring shit hoping for something interesting. Maybe it gets good on page 61.

Anyway, here is an excerpt:

"Consider our great urban centers as they exist today -- multisystems within multisystems, alternative upon alternative presenting an incomprehensible, many-futured state which is being rearticulated daily -- a great multifaceted sphere of complexity that cannot be managed, but must be. Management of such an environment requires a holistic perspective that cannot be obtained through traditional sequential communication forms"

There is something magical about finding something from 40 years ago that says "That thing you have been thinking about passionately? Someone was feeling the same way before the internet."

http://www.slideshare.net/pvdhyden/74duke-gaming-the-futures-language

[Upthrust]

I actually did a couple of games like these when I was an undergraduate. They were negotiation simulations, and there wasn't much structure to them, but they were pretty interesting. I specifically remember one on Israel-Palestine, where I was a representative of the Jewish settler community. It was an interesting pick for me because I'm not terribly sympathetic toward the settlers, so I wanted a chance to get into that mindset. The problem with these games is balancing frustration against a realistic time-frame for solving any of the problems that we're addressing. For this, we got about four hours. About three hours in, another of the settlers was bored and didn't really like the settlers either, so he went on a cartoonish rant in front of a bunch of the delegates in which he declared our support for Greater/Transjordan Israel, The other groups took advantage of this by basically excluding us from the rest of the negotiations. The Israeli government withdrew its support, the Americans insisted on the end. Even the Israeli Prime Minister, whose ear I had almost the entire negotiation, refused to talk to me for fear of being tarred by us. The overreaction was about as unrealistic as the the original rant, but it was the first scapegoat the other groups hand, and they figured they could reach a pretty acceptable solution if they didn't have to worry about the settlers. 

 

At the end, the main parties (the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the United Nations) were supposed to give press releases announcing their final decision: something to the effect of a two-state solution with the 1967 borders restored. Settlers could stay and become Palestinian settlers, or be re-settled in Israel, with aid from the United States and Israel. The smaller groups could make additional announcements if they wished, but most seemed pleased to let the solution stand on its own without comment. The other settlers seemed content with the solution too, but I was in the role, and I wasn't going to let it stand. I went to one of the leaders of the Israeli military who had generally supported us before one of our delegates flew off the handle. I talked out a quick plan while the other groups prepared their speeches, and then cleared our plan to one of the organizers. They were a little reluctant to agree, but I argued it was more realistic than the settler community simply standing by. So, in the midst of the smaller organizations announcing their support for the agreement, I announced the re-establishment Haganah backed by elements of the army, declared the government of Israel illegitimate, called the Prime Minister the King of Babylon, and took credit for bombing the Dome of the Rock. The event organizers confirmed that the Dome of the Rock had, in fact, been bombed.

 

Most people were kind of pissed off at me during the wrap-up lunch.

 

I guess the main lesson here is that if you don't set up the rules carefully, someone is going to be a jerk and ruin everyone's cooperation. Also, real negotiations are hard and makes some people cranky after only a few hours.