This is so cool. I had a similar idea about an ethical game a while ago! The idea was that:
The objective is to improve decisionmakers’ ethics
More points are gained for impact-maximization decisions in places and at times of large important meetings
The game settings/new developments are unrelated to the actual meetings but inspire thinking alongside similar lines[1]
At places and at times without large important meetings, on the other hand, points are gained for more deontological and active-listening-based decisions—the greater diversity of places of engagement, the better
This should motivate the consideration of a broader variety of groups, also though confirming that individuals should be nice to others[2]
Traditional social hierarchy shortcuts are played with in the design
For example, any gender person or entity can save another entity from a tower/pond/etc, if that task is included in the game
Authority characters exhibit some of the same body language as traditional[3] and non-traditional[4] authorities but are of any identities (traditionally more and less powerful, such as people of any gender, race, and background) who express themselves individually
Body shaming is entirely replaced by spirit and skill-based judgment but it is still possible to in some cases confirm one’s biases about body hierarchies
Hierarchies related to territory, self and partners’ objectification according to commerce, disregard in intimacy, ownership of items expensive due to marketing not function, fight that hurts someone, gaining attention by threat, showcasing unapproachability, and other negative standards are not used to motivate players’ progress or present a hierarchy—there is not really a hierarchy since the game is cooperative
These hierarchies can be used for critical engagement/discourse
The environment and tasks are continuously created, also by the players
Players gain points/perks for suggesting quests and settings that motivate impact-maximization decisionmaking and active listening to a diversity of individuals
The explicit objective point/perk award criteria includes an ethical ‘passing’ standard (relatively easy to get approved by friends, as long as one is friends from at least someone from various teams/groups/experience) but is otherwise based on something exclusively game-relevant (such as the number of blocks used)
The developers check on the ethical developments and intervene as necessary
For example, if a new ethical norm that was just accepted starts being overemphasized, as if to make a point by some groups, an interesting less ethics-intense challenge is introduced
If the dark triad traits become prominent among malevolent actors, points are associated with actions that counter the reinforcement of these traits
If anything becomes too repetitive or boring, new possibilities of playing are introduced
Friendships are formed
Players can participate in various teams at the same time. There is no better and worse affiliation, point maximization depends on one’s skills. Players can change affiliations freely, which can be beneficial to their score.
Chat function is engaging and concisely informative, providing the delight of having all info available in a useful format. Sincere reactions can be exhibited (rather than e. g. stickers or memes that confirm biases or optimize for non-critical engagement)
Players can be recognized at large decisionmaker meetings and outside.
Coding challenges
Make it difficult to trick the GPS
Or not, if there may be a sufficiently small number of sufficiently cool non-decisionmaker players who can inspire the decisionmakers
Feel free to use this for inspiration.
Are you soliciting ideas for the games in any way? For example, will you have Essay Contests or ideation days? There may be high interest from the EA community.
Another question is if you seek to actually engage the players in the alignment or more so make them comfortable[5] so that you can slip any thinking to them, even if they ‘wanted spaceships and it is animal welfare?’[6]
For example, to acquire a bounty pirates have to critically engage parrots while finding a way to make swords when iron is not on the map.
This can be very entertaining to the attendees of the OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting, if it seemed that everyone is parroting phrases. The no natural resource on the map can be a fun way to attract attention in a kind way and gain friendly understanding of fellow Meeting participants. This is a hypothetical example.
The way to motivate the decisionmakers to engage non-humans can be through analogous game challenges (this blob flying around you is trying to communicate something—what do you do to understand?) or marking some places with those who understand non-humans (e. g. neuroscience researchers or sanctuary farmers) as high-point for active-listening decisionmaking.
I am not sure if I am emotionally explaining the difference adequately, but this relates to the feeling 1) from the stomach up, palms going up, the person seeks to engage and is positively stimulated or 2) slight relaxation in the lower back, hands close, the person seeks to repeat ideas and avoid personal interaction.
Engaging the players may be necessary, otherwise problems that need extensive engagement will not get resolved and efficiency may be much lower compared to when everyone actually tries to solve the overall inclusive alignment and continue to optimize for greater wellbeing, efficiencies, and other important objectives.
The example is that a 60-hen cage can be better for chickens than open barns (according to EconTalk) - and that is just one aspect of life of one of the almost 9 million species and many more individuals. If people were to be ‘tricked’ into opening cages, a lot would remain unresolved.
This is so cool. I had a similar idea about an ethical game a while ago! The idea was that:
The objective is to improve decisionmakers’ ethics
More points are gained for impact-maximization decisions in places and at times of large important meetings
The game settings/new developments are unrelated to the actual meetings but inspire thinking alongside similar lines[1]
At places and at times without large important meetings, on the other hand, points are gained for more deontological and active-listening-based decisions—the greater diversity of places of engagement, the better
This should motivate the consideration of a broader variety of groups, also though confirming that individuals should be nice to others[2]
Traditional social hierarchy shortcuts are played with in the design
For example, any gender person or entity can save another entity from a tower/pond/etc, if that task is included in the game
Authority characters exhibit some of the same body language as traditional[3] and non-traditional[4] authorities but are of any identities (traditionally more and less powerful, such as people of any gender, race, and background) who express themselves individually
Body shaming is entirely replaced by spirit and skill-based judgment but it is still possible to in some cases confirm one’s biases about body hierarchies
Hierarchies related to territory, self and partners’ objectification according to commerce, disregard in intimacy, ownership of items expensive due to marketing not function, fight that hurts someone, gaining attention by threat, showcasing unapproachability, and other negative standards are not used to motivate players’ progress or present a hierarchy—there is not really a hierarchy since the game is cooperative
These hierarchies can be used for critical engagement/discourse
The environment and tasks are continuously created, also by the players
Players gain points/perks for suggesting quests and settings that motivate impact-maximization decisionmaking and active listening to a diversity of individuals
The explicit objective point/perk award criteria includes an ethical ‘passing’ standard (relatively easy to get approved by friends, as long as one is friends from at least someone from various teams/groups/experience) but is otherwise based on something exclusively game-relevant (such as the number of blocks used)
The developers check on the ethical developments and intervene as necessary
For example, if a new ethical norm that was just accepted starts being overemphasized, as if to make a point by some groups, an interesting less ethics-intense challenge is introduced
If the dark triad traits become prominent among malevolent actors, points are associated with actions that counter the reinforcement of these traits
If anything becomes too repetitive or boring, new possibilities of playing are introduced
Friendships are formed
Players can participate in various teams at the same time. There is no better and worse affiliation, point maximization depends on one’s skills. Players can change affiliations freely, which can be beneficial to their score.
Chat function is engaging and concisely informative, providing the delight of having all info available in a useful format. Sincere reactions can be exhibited (rather than e. g. stickers or memes that confirm biases or optimize for non-critical engagement)
Players can be recognized at large decisionmaker meetings and outside.
Coding challenges
Make it difficult to trick the GPS
Or not, if there may be a sufficiently small number of sufficiently cool non-decisionmaker players who can inspire the decisionmakers
Feel free to use this for inspiration.
Are you soliciting ideas for the games in any way? For example, will you have Essay Contests or ideation days? There may be high interest from the EA community.
Another question is if you seek to actually engage the players in the alignment or more so make them comfortable[5] so that you can slip any thinking to them, even if they ‘wanted spaceships and it is animal welfare?’[6]
For example, to acquire a bounty pirates have to critically engage parrots while finding a way to make swords when iron is not on the map.
This can be very entertaining to the attendees of the OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting, if it seemed that everyone is parroting phrases. The no natural resource on the map can be a fun way to attract attention in a kind way and gain friendly understanding of fellow Meeting participants. This is a hypothetical example.
The way to motivate the decisionmakers to engage non-humans can be through analogous game challenges (this blob flying around you is trying to communicate something—what do you do to understand?) or marking some places with those who understand non-humans (e. g. neuroscience researchers or sanctuary farmers) as high-point for active-listening decisionmaking.
For example, leaning on a table with one’s fingers or including someone in their seat
For example, standing with hands on one’s thighs, pointing inward or exhibiting enthusiasm about a decisionmaker who seeks to powerpose
I am not sure if I am emotionally explaining the difference adequately, but this relates to the feeling 1) from the stomach up, palms going up, the person seeks to engage and is positively stimulated or 2) slight relaxation in the lower back, hands close, the person seeks to repeat ideas and avoid personal interaction.
Engaging the players may be necessary, otherwise problems that need extensive engagement will not get resolved and efficiency may be much lower compared to when everyone actually tries to solve the overall inclusive alignment and continue to optimize for greater wellbeing, efficiencies, and other important objectives.
The example is that a 60-hen cage can be better for chickens than open barns (according to EconTalk) - and that is just one aspect of life of one of the almost 9 million species and many more individuals. If people were to be ‘tricked’ into opening cages, a lot would remain unresolved.