Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| marine_colab:game_on_experiment [2015-03-17 11:44] – nik | marine_colab:game_on_experiment [2017-01-24 08:08] – old revision restored (2015/04/27 15:41) 46.161.9.24 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ==== Game On Experiment ==== | ||
| - | |||
| - | (an experiment from the [[workshop_201503|March workshop]]) | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===Hypothesis / Challenge=== | ||
| - | |||
| - | "When is engaging the public the best way of changing the rules? and how?" https:// | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===Experiment design=== | ||
| - | |||
| - | {{> | ||
| - | [[https:// | ||
| - | |||
| - | To begin with, collecting examples of previous public engagements where public engagement did or didn't work (e.g. make poverty history, fish fight, whaling moratorium, ozone layer depletion, etc+) in some cases campaigns are not hung on the main issue, but use lateral issues. timing is very important (e.g. elections, public consultations) | ||
| - | |||
| - | As an example or test case to use as the basis for our experiment, we would use the review of the Habitats and Wild birds directive. We will set up a game or simulation of the legislative process to compare different inputs, player engagement and outcomes. By running through several iterations of the game, different modes and timing of public engagment can be compared. | ||
| - | |||
| - | design steps; | ||
| - | * map existing legislative process into something like a flow-chart | ||
| - | * survey existing simulations and work related to simulations of EU legislative process | ||
| - | * design a simulation (based on the results of first step) | ||
| - | * play simulation (with various strategies, etc) possibly updating the design | ||
| - | * document analyse games | ||
| - | |||
| - | needs; | ||
| - | * knowledge of legislative process | ||
| - | * simulation design | ||
| - | * recruit players | ||
| - | * players | ||
| - | * documenting game iterations | ||
| - | * evaluate strategies | ||
| - | |||
| - | offers | ||
| - | * SL: analysis | ||
| - | * SL: knowledge regarding step 1 | ||
| - | * ?: brainstorming | ||
| - | * MVL: the voting guy - cities | ||
| - | * MVL: coalition building & outreach | ||
| - | * ?: recruit potential players | ||
| - | * ?: oceans world bank as example | ||
| - | * catarina: help review game desing and rules | ||
| - | * foam: contact with game designers | ||
| - | * amy: help find players and be a sounding board | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===Progress=== | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===Results=== | ||
nik