"Emergency response is coordinated by anybody who is there and knows what they are doing."
Historically (not talking about management fads) this hasn't worked out well. Best case is it merely devolves into the photo-op. Usually the problem revolves around self assessment of "who knows what they are doing" vs everyone else's assessment, especially when "everyone else" isn't there or there's a continuum of what "there" means.
Aside from that, and the diary thing, this scheme is analogous to typical meatspace 'n' cardboard board game playing. This is how we handle division of labor when we play modern eurogames or old school board games like Monopoly. That it works pretty well when we just want to have fun and there are no real world concerns about the end result can be viewed either optimistically or pessimistically. Don't forget that "winner takes all and almost everyone ends up a powerless loser" is not just a stereotypical board game design, but also a fairly accurate description of our current economic and political system, so its not entirely crazy to compare the two activities.
modern eurogame = Powergrid, Agricola, stuff like that. Monopoly is from the USA and the 1930s. Old USA adult games + modern eurogames = complicated adult games.
I was trying to draw distinction between adult board games which are often kinda complicated and kids board games like chutes -n- ladders. If you need an elaborate scheme for distribution of labor when playing "Stone Age" that's normal, but if you need similar elaborate labor sharing agreements for chutes -n- ladders or Uno, you've been playing for booze shots too long or something like that.
A Democracy game of Uno sounds like fun... especially with alcohol involved.
I get your point, thanks -- true, game theory often fails to account for the reactions people have when there their self-interest is concerned. If I could fix that, I'd probably rule the world :)
Thank you for your help! How does the other stuff look? I'm going to freeze edits on that page for now, and discuss it here.
Historically (not talking about management fads) this hasn't worked out well. Best case is it merely devolves into the photo-op. Usually the problem revolves around self assessment of "who knows what they are doing" vs everyone else's assessment, especially when "everyone else" isn't there or there's a continuum of what "there" means.
Aside from that, and the diary thing, this scheme is analogous to typical meatspace 'n' cardboard board game playing. This is how we handle division of labor when we play modern eurogames or old school board games like Monopoly. That it works pretty well when we just want to have fun and there are no real world concerns about the end result can be viewed either optimistically or pessimistically. Don't forget that "winner takes all and almost everyone ends up a powerless loser" is not just a stereotypical board game design, but also a fairly accurate description of our current economic and political system, so its not entirely crazy to compare the two activities.