Win all U can thread

[Lisabob 13]

I have used variations of this game (well before attending WB - there's a whole literature out there on decision making that includes these sorts of models) in some of the classes I teach, where we discuss the problems associated with negotiating international agreements. When a student or handful of students know in advance what is happening, they play the game differently, thus altering the "typical" outcome. This may be good in some regards but it depends on the lesson we are attempting to teach, too.

 

So when this game got started at WB I pretty much knew what was going to happen. And yes, it probably did change what I took away from the game. I don't recall it as being fun or enlightening. In fact I recall thinking it wasn't especially well-executed and didn't really achieve the outcome intended, and was more than a bit heavy handed at the point in the course when it occurred. But maybe my view might have been different if I hadn't known what the point was from the outset.

[Bob White 20]

And yet nothing about Wood Badge or the Win All You Can game has been divulged in this thread either.

 

"you should have explained how this all worked, so we could have played the game better."

 

If someone in you course actually said that then either they were not paying attention or the game was not done according to the syllabus, because the rules are repeated over and over again throughout the game. The scoring is explained prior to each and every round and the scores are posted continually so that everyone knows where they stand.

 

Besides there is no right or wrong way to play the game.

[John-in-KC 311]

Bob should read the good Lisa's comments above. Since I have learned Lisa's bona fides I give her more credit for understanding pedagogical models than I do Bob.

 

There is a right way to play decision-making-model games such as WAUC.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

"So when this game got started at WB I pretty much knew what was going to happen.

While I can believe you had an opinion or 'feeling" about what might happen based on your personal experience, would you agree that without knowing the experiences and the characteristics of each and every other participant that there was no way for you to know what the actual outcome would be.

 

" And yes, it probably did change what I took away from the game."

Isn't it likely that each person comes to Wood Badge and this game with different life experiences and that each would take away something different from the game based on those experiences?

 

"I don't recall it as being fun or enlightening."

Not everyone does, even people experienceing it for the first time do not always find it fun or enlightening.

 

"In fact I recall thinking it wasn't especially well-executed and didn't really achieve the outcome intended, and was more than a bit heavy handed at the point in the course when it occurred. "

I have seen this same game done very well and very badly, like any other game it depends on the gameleader.

 

"But maybe my view might have been different if I hadn't known what the point was from the outset."

"Maybe" being the operative word. You really don't know. You could say the same thing about any and every aspect of your life.

 

The goal of training is to come away having learned. Whether you learned some things before you came or while at the training is unimportant. The goal is simply to see that the information is known. The fact that you knew the game did not alter the game for others or alter the purpose of the game.

 

 

Nor would the lesson have been lessened if everyone knew the game. It would simply not take as long to play, allowing more time to be spent on another activity or in the reflection of the game. But as long as everyone walked away understanding the lesson then the goal of the training was met.

 

What if everyone came to Wood Badge understanding what Vision meant. Would that ruin Wood Badge?

 

What if at a troop meeting the SPL was going to teach how to tie a one-handed bowline and discovered that everyone already knew how. Is the lesson ruined? Of course not. The goal was to end up with everyone able to tie a one-handed bowline, mission accomplished. The program can now move on to something else. Is your priority that the SPL gets to teach it or that the scouts know the skill?

 

Did the people who previously shared with the scouts ruin their troop meeting? No The goal was not to learn how to tie the knot "at the troop meeting". The goals was to see that the scouts could tie the knot.

 

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

So, Bob, what's your point?

 

I don't hear anyone here arguing for a return to the old days of cloak and dagger and "It will be revealed to you in due time" baloney. Maybe you just think keeping the ending of games and movies "secret" is allowing that camel's nose back under the tent? Possibly, but I don't see that as a problem. As I said before, an overall philosophy of openness is not inconsistent with an element of surprise in certain parts of the course.

 

But neither do I hear you advocating that we telegraph the endings of the movies and games to participants. So I'm just not sure where the point of contention lies.

 

I'm not especially a fan of the game. When it works -- as it did in the course in which I was a participant -- it works well and drives home a very effective point. But it also has a high probability of flopping. On the one hand, I've seen people get really upset. I've also seen it not work at all leaving the participants wondering what the point was. I think they could do better.

[FScouter 24]

The point of contention was whether it was necessary to delete a discussion topic from the forum. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a torrent of outrageous cries of censorship and heavy-handed moderation of free speech.

[Bob White 20]

I thought I made my point clear in my first post TwoCubDad?

 

1) There is no need, no request from the BSA, and no instruction from the WB course, to keep anything secret or surprising.

 

2) We have discussed far more Wood Badge elements in far greater detail in other threads on this very forum without anyone closing threads down under the excuse that it needs to be a mystery to enhance the experience for others.

 

3) Knowing how the game is played has not been proven by anyone to actually diminish the learning of the lesson.

 

4) In neither this thread, or the one that was removed, did anyone actually post how the game was played, yet it was still removed.

 

The most that was said was that there are not any questions involved in the game. Well, there aren't any questions involved in dodge ball either. If there were a thread on dodge ball and we revealed that it lacked questions would we need to close that thread as well?

 

There are far better reasons for closing down threads then the fear that someone might learn something from Wood Badge.

 

 

[BeaverIII 10]

 

"But it also has a high probability of flopping"

 

As I recall, that's what the original poster (Goofy) was trying to avoid. I have to agree with BW that NOTHING has been posted in either thread that revealed the purpose of the game or revealed what the take away message should be.

 

That someone was able to glean that from the comments posted in either thread is incredulous.

 

BeaverIII

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Never could understand why they would make a movie out of Romeo and Juliet, I know they both die in the end, I hope you don't mind but in all movies about the Titantic, the boat does go down. In the Daniel Day Lewis version of the Last of the Mohicans, I knew that Cora was going to die, but it turned out that instead it was Alice who leapt into the gorge to follow her beloved Uncas, leaving Cora with Natty Bumpo, nee Deerslayer, nee Hawkeye nee "La Longue Carabine" nee Pathfinder nee Leatherstocking" nee "the trapper".

 

Which never actually occurred, ol'Nat was pretty much a loner who didnt have much use for human relationships, not unlike Ethan Edwards, driven to a goal but with not much of a plan when the quest is through.

 

I am glad I deleted the orginal thread

[Bob White 20]

And did knowing the boat was going to sink diminish your experience?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[hot_foot_eagle 13]

"And did knowing the boat was going to sink diminish your experience?"

 

 

 

In the case of a movie, knowing the outcome or how the story is told cannot influence the outcome, only one's enjoyment of it.

 

If everyone is familiar with the lessons in WAUC going into it, then it becomes an exercise, not a game; classroom, where the magic isn't instead of interaction where the magic happens.

 

FWIW our staff did an outstanding job presenting the game.

 

(This message has been edited by hot_foot_eagle)

[Twocubdad 665]

You guys are all engineering and business majors, right? Did you never take a literature class?

 

Titanic is not a movie about what happens to the ship. It's about the two kids. Even then it's not a suspense mystery. We know in the beginning that the girl makes it. Who's the old lady telling the story? The movie doesn't rely on a surprise ending.

 

Win All You Can does rely on most participants not knowing the game. If after playing the first round, one participant raised his hand and said, "everyone of us played this last month at Roundtable, we know how it works," where would that leave things? An early crackerbarrel!

 

But back to Introduction to American Cinema 101: for our next lesson, please watch "The Sting" and be prepared to discuss it.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[MacScouter 10]

Being trained in Organizational Development, I was quite surprised that Woodbadge used this game to teach the principles it was attempting to teach. I have gone through a similiar training exercise with professional staff and they had a hard time dealing with the outfall. Woodbadge staff is made up of volunteers who do not always have the expertise to work on the situation and the reactions the game creates. In addition, this game has two built in fallacies: #1 Once the purpose of the game is explained then the "storming" situation created will disappear and/or will be worked out during Woodbadge. When you have members of teams swearing, fist fights, and chasing staff back to their campgrounds then the "storming" does not end there, but needs to be worked on through the norming stage. But the staff is not sufficiently trained nor do they have time (2-4 days) to work this out. #2 The assumption that the storming is focused within the Patrol. Our patrol "stormed" not at each other, but at the staff because of this activity. Due to the inherent trust you have in Scouting for you leaders, our entire Patrol felt betrayed by the Staff due to this game. When this was brought out to the staff, they in essence said "well Woodbadge makes us do it" and the game needs to stay in the game. Our entire patrol now has lost trust in the Woodbadge course and in the leaders who do not practice what they preach during the course. In closing, I find it ironic that the BSA feels it appropriate and necessary to attempt to teach a positive principle, by creating a highly explosive negative situation. There are other training methods and modules out there to use to get this point across. Finally, a scary thought is that several leaders are now going to take this game back to their boys. With swearing and fist fights breaking out among the adults, what do you think might happen with scouts play this game? Is this what BSA really wants.

[Bob White 20]

I think you may have missed the purpose of the game, or the staff in the course you attended missed it.

 

The purpose is not to create a storming situation. If you consider where in the course agenda this falls you will realize that it would make no sense to want patrols to storm this late in the process. Any conflict that arises from this game is not caused by the game itself, it is brought to the game in the beliefs and characteristics of some of the individuals who play.

 

This becomes obvious if you get the chance to see the game played in multiple courses. Sometimes there is no conflict and sometimes there is a little, or a lot. In every case the game and its insructions are identical, the only two variables are the staff and the participants.

 

This is one the topics that should not be lead by anyone who does not fully understand its purpose.

 

What is the purpose of "Win All U Can" (the game of life)? What were the pople who caused the most conflict trying to do? and what would have to happen for the game to be played without any conflict.

 

I strongly recommend you not answer that on-line because it will likely lead to the thread being closed. If you want to discuss it more I would be happy to discuss it with you through private messaging.

 

People who understand the game see the game of life played out all the time among kids in and out of scouting as well as among adults in and out of scouting. In fact you see it played on this forum almost everyday.

 

I would hope that leaders who go through Wood Badge the first time do not try to take every excercise back toi do with the scouts until they make sure they thoroughly understand the excercises correct applications and purposes. There is a reason that the staff trains and practices BEFORE they do these excercise with the participants.

 

[GMitch 10]

I know most people in my course still mildy resent the Beavers' and Eagles' performance that evening, but they really helped drive the lessons home. One of the main lessons to be had through the game is "get over it", whether you're perturbed at the Staffers, or some other Patrol.