Sunday, August 22, 2010

Response to Question 6

What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

In world politics I don’t think that winning is that much different to what it was like in our Diplomatic risk board game. I think that winning in world politics is getting through the diplomatic process and ending up with the most important interests of the body that you represent intact. It was very similar in our Diplomatic Risk game, you had to make it through the game and try to be as close to your objective as possible by the end. It is similar to the game also because you probably would have to make compromises to what you wanted along the way and change your course of action.

Although the game is decidedly less complicated than real life because in reality you can’t just attack another country because they are in your way. In actual world politics you would probably have to get involved with even more negotiations with the country in your ay in order to keep moving towards the goal of whatever government or group you represent.

Also the goals and ideals of a particular group might change in world politics where, in the game everything was fixed. Winning in the real world of world politics is also a lot more complicated because someone rarely gets through the process of negotiations with the exactly what they started out with as a goal at the end. Finally, there are a lot more different groups out there all with different interest in real world politics than there were in the game.

1 comment:

  1. Ellen-
    You have a good opinion on what it means to win in politics. However, I have to disagree with you with it. It would seem to me that winning in world politics would involve everybody walking away satisfied with what happened. You are definatly right about a board game being less complex than real life, but I don't think real life needs to be win/lose. Excellent job, though.

    ReplyDelete