updated session zero notes and minor copy edits
This commit is contained in:
Ven Gist
parent
12e1e173c9
commit
b305b9f0ab
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
|
|||
# Game Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Working Title:
|
||||
_Polycentricity_
|
||||
By mzargham and… tbd
|
||||
|
||||
By michael zargham, ven gist, and dorn cox
|
||||
|
||||
## [](#Why-This-Game "Why-This-Game")Why This Game?
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
|
|||
# Polycentricity
|
||||
|
||||
A governance roleplaying game
|
||||
A roleplaying game of networked agreements
|
||||
|
||||
## What is it?
|
||||
|
||||
**_Polycentric_** is a structured roleplaying game that simulates the complexity of collaborative governance. Players take on unique roles (e.g. farmer, co-op, policy advocate) and must negotiate agreements with others by exchanging obligations and benefits.
|
||||
**_Polycentric_** is a structured roleplaying game that simulates the complexity of collaborative governance in distributed environments. Players take on unique roles (e.g. farmer, policy advocate, coop) and must negotiate agreements with others by exchanging obligations and benefits.
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of “winning,” the aim is to practice creative problem-solving and reflect on real-world governance challenges:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
|
|||
## Overview of game
|
||||
|
||||
Polycentric is a role-playing game of agreements. Players engage in open exploration through agreement space, with resources available not constrained to capital. Players assume Roles, which have a set of Values, Goals, Resources, Obligations, etc. There is no set victory condition for the game, so there is less of a need to restrain the solution space (admissable action) of the players. The fitness function for players in the state of play is to:
|
||||
- openly imagine and explore new forms of agreements typically restricted by ontological and material constraints
|
||||
- improve understanding of a role through experience negotiating/feeling through its available agreement space
|
||||
- improve understanding of a network and its available agreement space
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Session Zero
|
||||
|
||||
Though we hadn't even played the game ourselves yet, we thought it wise to run our first play test session in the wild at Stanford CODEX's annual gathering of Law, AI, systems thinkers hosted by the respectable Tony Lai.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Setup (30 mins)
|
||||
Z explained the game overview and basic rule set. Players
|
||||
Dorn described the Scenario. The roles were based on an actual convening, Grassroots Innovation Assembly.
|
||||
Distributed roles to players.
|
||||
Ven prepared the Board of Agreements and data visualization of agreements as a bipartite graph. So players can see agreements being made as a network.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Play time (60 mins)
|
||||
|
||||
Players familarized themselves with their roles in relation to the scenario, and then made a quick introduction of their role to the group.
|
||||
|
||||
We then basically said 'Play', merely instructing them to start talking with each other to discover and build agreeements. Some players began negotiating with their neighbors. Most moved around, bouncing from negotiation to negotiation. Many pods of agreement-forming activity could be seen, with agents flowing in and out between them.
|
||||
|
||||
As agreements were made, players would write down which agents were involved the agreement and the terms of the agreement. Listing the obligations that were given, and the benefits received. They would then tack the agreement on on the right side of the board and then connect it with string to all involved agents from the left side of the board.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The first agreement was a small MOU style agreement between a global policy advocator and indigenous practitioner to hold space together and learn from each other.
|
||||
|
||||
The second to last agreement was a complex multilateral agreement. A coalition formed of 5 developer-related roles, adding a new agent to the board, which then formed another bilateral agreeement with another agent for the final agreement before lunch.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Debrief (30 mins)
|
||||
|
||||
Players were having a great time playing the game, so play continued through lunch, where we did a collective debrief of agreements made. For each agreement, a player who participated would come up and share the dynamics of the agreement. Which agents were involved, to what degree, and the purpose or benefits of the agreement.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Observations Notes from Session Zero
|
||||
|
||||
**data visualization**
|
||||
|
||||
*bipartite network graph of agents (blue) and agreements made (green).*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**modes of play observed**
|
||||
|
||||
Players embodied their roles extremely well. Though there was variance in how they embodied their roles. Some more emotional and others more strategic and calculated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Session Zero Agreements
|
||||
|
||||
**types of agreements made**
|
||||
- bilateral symmetric
|
||||
- multilateral asymmetric
|
||||
- formation of coalition as new agent
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG1 — Soil Data Sharing Cooperative**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: A cooperative framework where members contribute soil samples or agricultural data for collective analysis and shared insights.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A2, A5
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- A1, A2, A5: Provide consistent data inputs (e.g., crop types, soil samples, yield logs)
|
||||
- A4 (Coordinator): Analyze data and return comparative reports
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- A1, A2, A5: Access to aggregated data for better decision-making
|
||||
- A4: Ground-truth data for research or product development
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG2 — Seed Exchange Network**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Agreement around sharing and exchanging seed varieties among smallholder farmers.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A3, A6
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Each participant: Contribute at least one unique or adapted seed variety and document results
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- All: Increased biodiversity and access to local seed knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG3 — Social Climate Adaptation Circle**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: A support-oriented agreement for knowledge exchange on social and ecological resilience practices.
|
||||
**Parties**: A7, A8, A9
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Members: Share practices or stories about climate adaptation
|
||||
- Host (A7): Document and circulate key learnings
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- All: Shared resilience strategies, emotional and practical support
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG4 — Resource Lending Network**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Pooling of physical tools or equipment among farmers to reduce individual costs.
|
||||
**Parties**: A2, A3, A5
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Lenders (A2, A3): Maintain tools, define borrowing terms
|
||||
- Borrowers (A5): Return tools, offer labor or services
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Lenders: Social capital, non-monetary returns
|
||||
- Borrowers: Access to tools they can't afford
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG5 — Knowledge Commons Assembly**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Collaborative documentation and open sharing of agroecological practices and local innovations.
|
||||
**Parties**: A4, A6, A9
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Each member: Contribute documented method or case
|
||||
- A4: Maintain open access archive
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Contributors: Visibility, feedback
|
||||
- Community: Free access to vetted knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG6 — Agroecology Mentorship Chain**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: A cascading mentorship system to pass knowledge through generational tiers.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A4, A6
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Seniors (A1, A4): Provide mentorship
|
||||
- Juniors (A6): Apply learnings and mentor others
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Seniors: Legacy, recognition
|
||||
- Juniors: Credibility, deep knowledge access
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG7 — Climate Tool Trial**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Partnership to pilot a forecasting tool in exchange for field feedback.
|
||||
**Parties**: A3, A4, A8
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- A3, A8: Field test tool, provide feedback
|
||||
- A4: Deliver updates, integrate insights
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Climate planning support
|
||||
- Developer: Validation and case studies
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG8 — Mobile Market Access**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Coordinated transport network for reaching urban markets.
|
||||
**Parties**: A2, A5, A6
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Sync harvests, pay fee or share fuel
|
||||
- Coordinators: Maintain logistics and vehicles
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Better market access and prices
|
||||
- Coordinators: Stable revenue, social value
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG9 — Data Commons Guild**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Shared framework for managing agricultural data as a commons.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A2, A4, A9
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Monthly data contributions
|
||||
- Stewards (A4): Secure and curate data
|
||||
- Researchers (A9): Share outcomes and respect permissions
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Bargaining leverage
|
||||
- Researchers: High-integrity datasets
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG10 — Rainwater Harvesting Circle**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Mutual aid system for rain capture infrastructure.
|
||||
**Parties**: A2, A3, A5, A6
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- All: Build, maintain, and share repair knowledge
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- All: Water security, shared labor economy
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG11 — Intercrop Innovation Pact**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Collaboration to test intercropping combinations across farms.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A4, A7
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Farmers (A1, A7): Dedicate plots, share data
|
||||
- Agronomists (A4): Share methods, analyze results
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Yield optimization
|
||||
- Researchers: Field results
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG12 — Storytelling for Policy Change**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Stories from food systems to influence policy.
|
||||
**Parties**: A1, A6, A10
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Farmers (A1, A6): Provide narratives
|
||||
- Advocates (A10): Convert stories into briefs
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Farmers: Policy influence
|
||||
- Advocates: Grounded, compelling material
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### **AG13 — Collective Carbon Commons**
|
||||
|
||||
**Summary**: Agroforestry-linked carbon credit initiative.
|
||||
**Parties**: A5, A8, A11
|
||||
**Obligations**:
|
||||
- Stewards (A5): Follow protocols
|
||||
- Verifiers (A8): Certify outcomes
|
||||
- Funders (A11): Share carbon returns
|
||||
**Benefits**:
|
||||
- Stewards: Carbon revenue
|
||||
- Verifiers: Publishable results
|
||||
- Funders: Reputational and ROI gains
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,145 +0,0 @@
|
|||
# Polycentric at Codex
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview of game
|
||||
|
||||
Polycentric is a role-playing game of agreements. Players engage in open exploration through agreement space, with available resources available not constrained to capital. Players assume Roles, which have a set of Values, Resources, Goals, etc. There is no set victory condition for the game, so solution space need not be limited. The fitness function for players in the state of play could be to:
|
||||
|
||||
- openly imagine and explore new forms of agreements typically restricted by ontological and material constraints
|
||||
- improve understanding of a role through experience negotiating/feeling through its available agreement space
|
||||
- improve understanding of a network and its available agreement space
|
||||
|
||||
## Session Zero
|
||||
|
||||
Though we hadn't even played the game ourselves yet, we thought it wise to run our first play test session in the wild at Stanford CODEX's annual gathering of Law, AI, Systems thinkers hosted by the respectable Tony Lai.
|
||||
|
||||
- notes on audience (law-adjacent)
|
||||
|
||||
## Setup (30 mins)
|
||||
|
||||
Z explained the game overview and basic rule set.
|
||||
Ruleset:
|
||||
Dorn described the Scenario (Grassroots Innovation Assembly)
|
||||
Description of scenario:
|
||||
Distributed roles to players
|
||||
Description of roles:
|
||||
Ven prepared the Board of Agreements
|
||||
|
||||
- notes on the prototype (materials and data collection/visualization)
|
||||
|
||||
## Play time (60 mins)
|
||||
|
||||
Players familarized themselves with their roles in relation to the scenario, and then made a quick introduction of their role to the group.
|
||||
|
||||
We then basically said 'Play', merely instructing them to start talking with each other to discover and build agreeements. Some players began negotiating with their neighbors. Most moved around, bouncing from negotiation to negotiation. Many pods of agreement-forming activity could be seen, with agents flowing in and out between them.
|
||||
|
||||
As agreements were made, players would write down which agents were apart of the agreement and what obligations were given, and benefits received. Tack it on the right side of the board and connect the involved agents from the left side.
|
||||
|
||||
The first agreement was a small MOU style agreement between a global policy advocator and indigenous practitioner to hold space together and learn from each other.
|
||||
|
||||
The second to last agreement was a complex multilateral agreement. A coalition formed of 5 developer-related roles, adding a new agent to the board, which then formed another bilateral agreeement with another agent for final agreement before lunch was to start.
|
||||
|
||||
## Debrief (30 mins)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Players were having a great time playing the game, so play continued through lunch, where we did a debrief. For each agreement, a player who participated would come up and share the dynamics of the agreement. Which agents were involved, and to what degree, and the purpose or benefits of the agreement.
|
||||
|
||||
## Observations from Session Zero
|
||||
|
||||
**data visualization**
|
||||
|
||||
_bipartite network graph of agents (blue) and agreements made (green)._
|
||||
|
||||
**types of agreements made**
|
||||
|
||||
bilateral symmetric
|
||||
multilateral asymmetric
|
||||
|
||||
**modes of play observed**
|
||||
|
||||
Players embodied their roles extremely well. Though there was variance in how they embodied their roles. Some more emotional and others more strategic and calculated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
notes from block.science governance pod
|
||||
|
||||
ds: were players good at agreements?
|
||||
lawyer-adjacent made them good at agreements, and role-adjacent made them good at embodying the roles
|
||||
|
||||
rj: challenge of subjective play
|
||||
|
||||
stuff for dms
|
||||
stuff for players
|
||||
stuff the dm creates for the players
|
||||
|
||||
ilan:
|
||||
what is our goal?
|
||||
|
||||
directionality of humans through pre-capitalist agreement space
|
||||
|
||||
\*\*RJC re: Ilan: absolutely right on design comment. because its an exploratory game and doesn't have an explicit fitness function for players to track (a score) theres less of a need to restrain the solution space (admissable action) of the player
|
||||
|
||||
pedagogical to teach about practical governance tensions and agreement networks
|
||||
|
||||
socialization of ideas and possiblities
|
||||
|
||||
development of framework
|
||||
|
||||
counterfactual role-building
|
||||
|
||||
rml: can we get our divisive tribal leader to just come together play a game
|
||||
|
||||
platform to launch variants
|
||||
experiential play
|
||||
|
||||
- capabilities play
|
||||
- fitness function is
|
||||
empathagenic
|
||||
|
||||
debrief
|
||||
|
||||
- maybe a coach for roles that are novel to them
|
||||
|
||||
dimensions of play/development
|
||||
analog human
|
||||
digital human
|
||||
digital agentic (simulated play)
|
||||
|
||||
Exhaustive search of a game space
|
||||
|
||||
Action paths
|
||||
|
||||
- knowledge container
|
||||
|
||||
Action tracks
|
||||
|
||||
- things we'd like to do
|
||||
- building roles and scenarios
|
||||
- building software
|
||||
- ethnography
|
||||
- graphing with hyperedging
|
||||
- financial support
|
||||
|
||||
web3:
|
||||
projects building dao tools
|
||||
|
||||
which patterns are stable and resistant
|
||||
|
||||
- quick start
|
||||
- facilitator guide
|
||||
- rule set
|
||||
- materials
|
||||
|
||||
gather town
|
||||
people can break out on their own.
|
||||
|
||||
zoom for setup and introductions
|
||||
gather town for playtime
|
||||
typeform for agreements
|
||||
agent, agent, set of obligations/benefits
|
||||
multilateral
|
||||
formation of new body, resulting actor, and who can speak for them.
|
||||
|
||||
regather into zoom for debrief
|
||||
|
||||
hyperedges on the graph?
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
|||
... synthesizing notes, forthcoming
|
||||
|
||||
- Digital remote session with Metagov during KOI pond
|
||||
- Used gather town for proximate audio interaction
|
||||
- Mural for collaborative agreement formation and graphing
|
||||
|
||||
https://app.mural.co/t/polycentric8842/m/polycentric8842/1745432150641/8a3a2fc65c78808c2b243554bfade4a92b0f4d48
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 283 KiB |
Loading…
Reference in New Issue