Reflect on one of the simulations from the course. You might consider questions such as the following: How did the simulation go? What was your role and strategy? How did you adapt your strategy or behaviors? How did others behave? How well did the simulation encompass concepts and theories from the course? What did you learn? Do you feel it was an effective pedagogical exercise? What changes or adaptations would you suggest?
The game we played in class:
We played a game in the class were there were 4 insurgents that kill people at night, and the next day the people will discuss and vote on who they think are the insurgents. What I did is voting with the majority. Others were thinking the insurgents are the quite people in the discussion.
You may organize your paper as you see fit. That said, a 3 paragraph format could be helpful for structuring your reflection: 1) An introduction that previews your main point/ argument; 2) The specifics or evidence to support your argument/ reflection; 3) The significance or broader implications of your reflection.
You are free to reflect on any aspect(s) of any of the simulations that pique your interest. In case you are looking for some suggestions of topics, here are some OPTIONAL questions/ prompts related to each simulation you could respond to:
The Denunciations Game:
- What was your role(s) in the game and what was your strategy? What were your motivations and why did you choose to play the game the way that you did?
- What role does information play in the game? What signals or sources of information were available to you/ which ones did you rely on to inform your strategy and decision-making? What were you trying to learn about other players during the game?
- What kinds of arguments or “evidence” were used by different players to make accusations or defend against accusations?
- How realistic do you feel the game dynamics are for approximating dynamics of denunciation (e.g., from Kalyvas)? Does the game correspond to any (historical) real-world conflicts or belligerents (state or non-state actors)? How so?
- Does the game adequately reflect the “fog of war” or “law of silence”? How so? What is the “fog of war”/ “law of silence”?
- What were the challenges to organizing for collective action among the “civilians” in the game?
- In a number of instances, suspicions, accusations, and cleavages among the student participants (“civilians”) arose “endogenously”—during the course of the gameplay. What kinds of accusations and cleavages arose, and how and why did this occur?
- Are there modifications to the game that could be made to better reflect or incorporate civilians’ agency or nonviolent strategies? Are there any modifications to represent the procedures of the ATCC? How would the gameplay change?
- How did you feel while playing the game—how did the accusations and suspicions make you feel? Did you feel you could trust the other players? How did you decide whom to trust (if at all)? Did the dynamics make you feel more empathetic toward the plight of civilians in war zones?
- Are there any other rule modifications you would be interested in trying out to alter the gameplay? Which ones? If the game were to be played with your rule change(s), how might you expect the gameplay to be different? Why? Does the rule change have any real-world policy implications (e.g., for protecting civilians)?
- Could the game rules be changed to better incorporate aspects of particular theories of violence from the course (e.g., zones of control, types of armed groups, “draining the sea” and related consequences)? How would the gameplay change?
- Could the rules be changed to incorporate particular protection actors? How would the gameplay change?
Reflect on one of the simulations from the course. You might consider questions such as the following: How did the simulation go? What was your role and strategy? How did you adapt your strategy or behaviors? How did others behave? How well did the simulation encompass concepts and theories from the course? What did you learn? Do you feel it was an effective pedagogical exercise? What changes or adaptations would you suggest?
(The game we played in class:
We played a game in the class were there were 4 insurgents that kill people at night, and the next day the people will discuss and vote on who they think are the insurgents. What I did is voting with the majority. Others were thinking the insurgents are the quite people in the discussion.)
You may organize your paper as you see fit. That said, a 3 paragraph format could be helpful for structuring your reflection: 1) An introduction that previews your main point/ argument; 2) The specifics or evidence to support your argument/ reflection; 3) The significance or broader implications of your reflection.
You are free to reflect on any aspect(s) of any of the simulations that pique your interest. In case you are looking for some suggestions of topics, here are some OPTIONAL questions/ prompts related to each simulation you could respond to:
The Denunciations Game:
- What was your role(s) in the game and what was your strategy? What were your motivations and why did you choose to play the game the way that you did?
- What role does information play in the game? What signals or sources of information were available to you/ which ones did you rely on to inform your strategy and decision-making? What were you trying to learn about other players during the game?
- What kinds of arguments or “evidence” were used by different players to make accusations or defend against accusations?