Custom Search
RPG About Chavez, Obama, Latin America
Submitted by fyl on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 07:30.
To make the game as realistic as possible, but also manageable, the class was divided into twelve teams: Chavez and his cronies, the Venezuelan opposition, the Venezuelan electorate, the Colombian rebels, the Colombian government, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Russia, and the incoming Obama Administration (including the Democratic-led Senate and House). Team Chavez as well as Team Obama were each given $5 billion (in $100 million certificates) to distribute as they saw fit. Russia and Brazil each had $1 billion to distribute. The object of the game was to see how Chavez would distribute his $5 billion, especially when he faced some competition in this regard from the US in particular.
What happened? Not what he expected but the good news is that Nicaragua was judged to be one of the winners. Read the article for the details.
Games
The game experiment only becomes more interesting if the money is dispersed periodically based on expected or promised behaviors. Such games are not enhanced by introducing more or different players, but by increasing the time-frames and consequences. These changes make the game more real-world based. It is debatable if all the same countries would win if the game were made more like the real world. Real world game-theory still has the legacy of the simplest "program" winning in any computer model resembling basic gestures of what we normally refer to as altruism (in game purposes or real world ones it doesn't matter that aid also serves a self-interested purpose, etc.), namely the tit-for-tat strategy seen in the computer models set up by Robert Axelrod - which were won by psychologist-mathematician Anatole Rappaport. Katz's "game" isn't a complete game and doesn't really mirror collective action problems, making it less significant and less meaningful. To use a poker analogy, people dot play a single hand and quit, they play for a set time or until there is a winner, and this Katz game isn't that realistic, not as a game model anyway. A place like Nicaragua might easily win a few rounds early since they might play both sides off one another as a fresh start platform, but all fresh starts can end quickly if there are consequences to not delivering on promises.
Importance of players, and game design
> Such games are not enhanced by introducing more or different players
Different players would absolutely make a difference. A neocon playing the role of Chavez would make radically different decisions than a socialist. Same for the other roles. Unless there is some reason to believe that these particular participants played every role "purely", without bringing in any personal bias, I can't put a lot of stock in the outcome of just this one run of the game with just this one group of players.
This reminds me of a geopolitical RPG we played when I was in junior high. It was built around the Korean war, and the roles were: US, China, Russia, North and South Korea, and maybe a couple others like India or the UN. The names were disguised, so we didn't know what chapter of history we were replaying.
Each turn, the team playing the US chose to attack. Each turn, our team (Russia) attempted to negotiate peace, as did the Chinese. We only had a limited menu of options available each turn. After three turns of heavy losses, the Chinese chose the more aggressive option, at which point the game ended in WW III.
All I learned from it was how badly the game was designed. Oh, and that the people on the US team were jerks for always being aggressive. With different players on the different teams, the outcome would have been quite different.
Different players
The point was that by changing the game it would be more realistic, hence it could be a "different" game. Were the game changed (different), it could be the kind of game where changing players does not matter. Such a game would be any game based on a shared or standard game-theory model, like say "the prisoner's dilemma", etc. (once you have a Neocon playing Chavez the game is meaningless and ceases to be of any useful function/value in that the game presupposes facts commonly known to be false, namely that Chavez is not a Neocon).
well, still, you'll have
well, still, you'll have some problems. What are for example the goals of the various teams? According to this professor and his students, Chavez is out to buy himself into power, and Obama is out to help everybody. That assumption alone means that their outcome is rather valueless. Of course they could happen to be right, but the problem is that they seem to assume that even before the game has started… In addition, they likely have no clue about all the internal politics of all these countries (I don't say I do in all cases, but likely a bit more in the case of Nicaragua than he and his students).
-- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org
Goals
Game goals are on some level self-interested - though this is or can be handled in the very broadest sense. If for whatever reason Chavez wanted to buy himself power and Obama for whatever reason wanted to help everybody, it is possible their actions would not even conflict - not if money from both ends up in the hands of the right poor people. For example, if Chavez spends money to help poor people in return for votes, and Obama allocates program money out of some altruistic model, their actions (game outcomes) are what is measured not their intentions or any personal assumptions regarding them or their internal beliefs. Those assumptions alone would not necessarily render it valueless, even if the assumptions are less than perfect.
But the problem is what if
But the problem is what if their real intentions are the opposite? Chavez wanting to help and Obama just run by the CIA and military-industrial complex as well Chiquita and Dole?
"Self-interest" can also be many different things. Do you mean self-interest of the whole nation (that includes the poorest member of it) as getting happy and being well-fed? Self-interest in getting re-elected? Self-interest in getting rich? Self-interest in going down in history as a great person? Self-interest in expanding one's powerbase to as large an area as possible? Or self-interest in feeling good about oneself?
All these different self-interest conflict one-another.
Also the whole game-theory grows out of one particular political ideology. But then some say "well, to be alt-ruistic is in some people's self-interest, because it makes them feel good about themselves". Well, certainly, but if you allow that, then basically any possible course of action, including suicide, can be counted as being self-interest-based and so the theory and the game become rather worthless.
-- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org
biased game?
I agree. Just in the article alone, there are a few key-wordings that give away the attitude of the professor.
The first thing is that he calls Obama "left-leaning". well, that is given a very limited US reality. Were Norway to vote on the US president, I remember reading a few years back, the race would be between Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Also, he has been talking about bombing the Afghan-Pakistani border, which in end-effect might help the military-industrial complex more, given the shear size of Pakistan, than anything Bush has ever done.
Secondly Chavez is called "anti-American". Last I checked, Chavez was handing out cheap heating oil to poor US households. Chavez is of course himself American, but I guess we're here as so often using "American" as meaning "U.S. American". Ok, so Chavez is "anti-Bush-administration" or anti "US-imperialist", but Mr. Katz sees that as being the same as anti-American.
Next, one of the groups is "Chavez and his cronies" while those representing Obama are the "Obama team". Now both are democratically elected presidents, so why isn't it "Obama and his cronies" or "the Chavez team"?
Also, I doubt that his students (nor he?) have much of any clue about Nicaragua. The rethorics against the US administration are pretty much on the same level from Ortega as from Castro.
Further, the students have an idea of Chavez in which he just hands out money to anywhere, without any checks, just to extend his power, whereas the Obama team don't really care about such things, and instead want to check that they are actually going to the real purpose. All the governments of the receiving countries are also of course so corrupt as to want to avoid the checks -- presumably to put the money into their own pockets.
Thee were just a few examples showing how biased the game setup and the players are. I am sure one can find many more. And I actually don't think these games make sense. It would make a whole lot more sense to put a bunch of US students with pro-Chavez Venezuelan students and FSLN-students to just talk about how to solve the world problems, just so they get an insight into how they think. Also, the teacher should maybe either be a U.S.American with a deep insight into Venezuelan/Nicaraguan/Cuban life and views, or someone from India or some other country which doesn't have a direct share in this.
-- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org
Or
considering the Players. a more interesting Game might be to change the premise,using the American Auto Manufacturers, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, as the subject. Including dependent Industries. There are a whole bunch of parallels there.
"Just the Facts, Sir..just the Facts"
If you remember the old TV series "Dragnet", Sgt. Joe Friday would always say before he interigates a suspect in a very deep, calm voice..."Just the facts, sir,...just the facts". I would bet the the students' role playing game would have played out with much different results if they had all the facts as Gustavo Coronel outlines in a recent article in PetroleumWorld.com. Mr. Coronel is a 28 year oil industry veteran,an international lecturer about Venezuela as well as member of the first board of directors (1975-1979) of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), author of several books. He may have helped the students with The Facts.
http://petroleumworld.com/sunopf08121401.htm
Thanks for the Link and Article by Coronel
I read something similar about a year back concerning Latin American "Populist" Leaders and how they seem to always maintain that old saying, absolute Power corrupts absolutely. On balance, I haven't, beyond Venezuelan internal propaganda,seen or been referred to articles like this displaying a counter argument for and on behalf of Chavez.
Interesting idea
Maybe some of you computer types could set up a place where teams could play this over the internet.
What were the rules?
I guess I would need to know more about the rules of this game. And I would want to see the results when run several times with different players.
Interesting mind experiment, though.
Frontline
Want to see a documentary by a reputable, non Chavez ass-kisser organization, watch: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/view/
Watch the whole program. There is some inescapable conclusions, but I'll let you arrive at your own conclusions.
I'm Disappointed
I confess, I only watched the first part but there was enough information presented out of context that I am just disappointed with PBS. I guess it really shows how much they have become corporate funded these days.
Now, I am not saying that Chávez is perfect—he is far from it. But, for example, the "sends troops to the front with Columbia but five days later the war was over" bit totally missed what the real problem was, and what happened to Uribe at the summit (basically, all other presidents told him he that an attack inside the border of another country was not something he got to do). Clearly is designed to make Chávez look like the crazy one when world opinion at the time was that Uribe was the crazy one.
For anyone who wants to understand what Chávez is trying to do, I highly recommend this book. It is not designed to be critical of him but, rather, to present what he sees as his mission. Are there shortcomings in his implementation? Yes, of course. But starting with what he is trying to do seems like a better way to look at the situation.
2nd half
The 2nd half is better than the first half.