Development of planning argument evaluation game

Proposal: 

To support the development of a game aiming to familiarize participants with the argumentative model of planning, cooperative conflict resolution, and systematic evaluation of planning arguments.

Problem and rationale:

The current challenges for humanity-- leading the UN Secretary General to call for 'revolutionary thinking and action to secure an economic model for survival' -- require the adoption of considerable changes in the conduct of human affairs. Some of these changes can be brought about by individuals everywhere adapting their behavior and life styles to a more sustainable pattern. But some changes will require the adoption of agreements on a global scale. Such agreements cannot be imposed by some global authority nor by treaties among nation in a global forum such as the UN. They must be achieved as a result of a global discourse in which all societies and parts of societies can freely participate to voice their concerns, and in which decisions will eventually be made on the basis of the merit of the information and arguments brought into the discussion -- not on the basis of majority voting, nor decisions by 'representatives' elected or self-appointed, which can be entirely disconnected from the concerned voiced, nor other criteria unrelated to the quality of the proposals made. 

Neither a practical formal framework for such a discourse is currently available (see proposal [….]  nor are most people familiar with the kind of cooperative, argumentative planning and conflict resolution it implies and needs to yield acceptable results.  There is therefore an urgent need not only to develop the framework, but also to introduce and familiarize people  everywhere with these ideas and practices:  a global task of education.

Framing the task in terms of 'education' might suggest that it should be the responsibility of the traditional educational system -- schools -- to perform it.  It is argued here that this would require an enormous amount of resources, negotiations, training teachers, overcoming bureaucratic obstacles, and time. Nor does it seem feasible to argue for grafting the needed provisions onto traditional political processes such as elections: this might simply add another one obstacle to people's willingness to engage in these civic duties, to add to the problem of 'voter apathy'.  We also argue that we do not have the time nor resources for either of these solutions: This global effort must use alternative approaches.  A case might be made for a strategy to devote research efforts to explore and develop appropriate means.

Game proposal

In the meantime, the proposal is to use the new technology of the internet, and the capabilities of cellphones -- technologies that are becoming widely available even in developing societies; and to combine these with the 'missing ingredient'  responsible for 'voter apathy':  a sense of 'reward' for participation. Both ingredients could be made the basis of online or face-to-face games. Games require the quick learning of the 'rules'  (which have to be reasonably simple), provide the excitement of involvement and participation; and can offer incentives of 'immediate reward'  by earning 'points'  for contributions.

The argumentative model of planning as proposed by H Rittel […] combined with the suggestions for evaluation of planning arguments by T. Mann [2010]  provide one viable basis for such a game: a game that aims at teaching participants cooperative problem-solving and planning, developing solutions and making decision based on the merit of arguments, where the goal is not a ‘win-lose’ (competitive) but a ‘win-win’ (cooperative) outcome. Player rewards are not based only on the value of individuals’ contributions, but also on the quality of the solution and decision the group s a whole has reached in the end. The ultimate goal is that participants who have become familiar with the game and its philosophy will then be able to use the same approach to actual planning and policy-making situations in reality.  It can eventually be introduced as a key part of the discourse component of the proposed global framework, providing the crucial missing link between merit of discourse and final decisions -- that is not adequately addressed in even the most 'democratic' forms of governance currently in use.