Playin' Politics Workshop Response

Do you think the political simulation games you examined would have been "effective" in communicating with people via the internet?

Yep. The thing about them though is that, generally speaking, they are a case of 'preaching to the converted.' Not many people who aren't already inclined toward the particular views expressed in the games would end up playing. Presumably people would see them someplace on the internet and be drawn to it because they felt the same way, or perhaps they are told about the games by a friend who, more than likely, shares the same views as themselves and the creators of the games.

Was the political message underpinning the political simulation games you examined immediately obvious? If not, were you driven or interested to find out what the game was trying to "say" (apart from the fact that you have to as part of the workshop)?

The issues conveyed are quite obvious and the games certainly are an effective way to 'drive the message home.' Provided that you take the minimal effort required to understand the game and how it works, the message should be self-apparent. Of course some might be driven to research more what was specifically being said, however I wasn't driven to on this occasion. I'm quite aware already that most politicians are corrupt evil bastards and I suppose I don't feel that my knowledge base in this area requires expanding at this point in time.

If you had to write a political simulation game similar in size and structure to those you examined, (a) what would be the point you were trying to make and (b) how would the game be structured and operate in order to make that point? (just give a very brief outline)

It would be a game about the nature of politics and politicians in general. The point would be that the evil actually gains in influence within. Within a: the greed for power of the politicians, and b: the laziness of the masses. I suppose the quotes "All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing," combined with "know your enemy" (ie both without and within) would express the communicative thrust of the game.

It would be a game where everyone is given a "karma rating." For the politicians the karma rating goes down when they do things to people without the population's (passive?) consent, for the people the rating goes down whenever they do silly shit like violent protests and voting for warmongerers. In the end the side with the cleanest bill of karma wins. Of course within this game you can play only an individual and must somehow try to align your views sufficiently with the general populace, or find ways to influence them.