Ansley Whitlock @ansleyzigzag - Tumblr Blog

altruism? survival of the fittest?

Considering the diversity of ideologies in our class and how those ideals steer our decisions, I expect the Statecraft simulation to show everyone’s ultimate values and motives, whether it be to ensure the health and happiness of global citizens or simply to watch the world burn. From my current understanding, some of my classmates, including myself, share a similar progressive, non-militaristic ideology that would lead us to avoid international conflict and follow ideals of altruism so that those x number of points will be awarded to each world leader and no student will be left behind scoring wise. By working toward the betterment of all nations, everyone in the simulation would benefit somewhat equally from maintaining peace, sustaining the environment, ending world hunger, and eliminating global terrorism through cooperative efforts and alliances. However, because these utopian goals would correspondingly boost every student’s grade, more competitive or egotistic leaders may be inclined to disregard these global goals and act solely to maximize their own country’s profit and success. Furthermore, although no single nation will want to make the first big move, igniting conflict will be inevitable due to the virtual world’s shortage of resources and technology.

april-collette

why a constitutional monarchy?

For the statecraft simulation, Alex, Ellie, and I decided to create the Constitutional Monarchy of Candyland. As our country’s quality of life index is a primary component of our classroom grade, we concluded that a Constitutional Monarchy’s “vibrant, rich culture,” according to the Statecraft manual, would yield a better quality of life than a society governed by a Communist Totalitarian or Military Dictatorship regime. As a result of this, along with Alex and I’s non-militarist viewpoints, we were left with either a Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy.

Although a Monarchy’s history of elitism may create inequality among citizens, a Democratic country has increased crime, which would work against our aim to produce the highest quality of life as possible for our society. Yes, the strong sense of liberty under a Democratic government makes the populace happier, but a Monarchy could achieve the same happiness by dedicating resources toward education and welfare programs. Additionally, under a Monarchy, Queen Ellie, as head of state, has the ability to call on the population to sacrifice for her, which the manual tells us will produce increases in resource production and political capital. Playing-up our Constitutional Monarchy’s already strong culture simply through the purchase of structures will allow us to focus on the safety, education, and overall health of our society, which will ensure the best quality of life for Candylandians and a hopeful corresponding passing grade for the country’s rulers.

april-collette

economy or approval?

As we work to develop Candyland and increase its wealth, citizen approval and the associated economy should mandate every decision we make. As the approval rating dictates how much political capital is gained or lost each turn, and our country’s current approval rating is disasterous, our main objective throughout this turn was to enact programs and prioritize research as an attempt to improve citizens’ quality of life. Initiating these programs requires investments of political capital, which we are in low supply of, but funding the programs will supposedly increase the production of goods and enhance the quality of life.

During Turn 4, we made the mistake of joining the World Trade Organization. At the time, Candyland’s gold supply was significantly lower than our oil and steel resources, and joining the WTO would increase the amount of gold produced each turn. Although our intention was to improve the economy, our country’s largest faction condemned our joining of the WTO, and consequentially, our approval rating immediately dropped and our plan backfired. After a couple dramatic emails from citizens, we quickly withdrew from the organization and made amends by buying two theatres and hospitals for every city… The quality of life is now slowly improving, but our citizens still despise us for wanting to promote economic development.Much like Nigeria, Candyland has absoulutely no idea where to invest its limited resources or how to develop its economy, so we will concentrate on quality of life for now.

april-collette

@country 5, really?

Now that our PACIFIST nation has been almost entirely taken over by unprovoked Country 5, there is little we can do. If we invest resources into military resources and development, our citizens will become furious, and all our work and strategies to strengthen our approval rating and consequent political capital will be thrown out the window.

With such limited military power, the best we can do to deal with these changing power dynamics is seek assistance from our allies and the UN. Our nationalists are rioting, which follows their values, but, again, there is little we can do. To account for the nationalists’ declining approval rating, we are trying to appease other groups, especially the ones that have the heaviest influence on Candyland’s overall approval, while we also focus on domestic development.

If worse comes to worse, our monarch could call upon citizens to fight for their king and country in order to draft a militia. I’m not sure how our militia would compare to Country 5′s fighter jets, but perhaps our patriotism can be capitalized on when harnessed.

christianosborne

Statecraft Turn 1: Are We In This Together?

We’ve now played through the first turn of Statecraft and dynamics are already taking shape. Here’s our map with everyone’s locked in ideologies. My country is The North Face.

During this turn countries set up structures intended to improve their quality of life and earn resources, established lines of research, and began exchanging ambassadors and trading the feeble resources available from turn 1.

Many of the participants in the simulation used their turn 0 blog posts to advocate for the eschewing of an isolationism and the immediate adoption of a global policy of transparency and sharing. As we go into turn 1 I’m juggling mixed feelings about the plan. I’m confident that it is the best course of action but very dubious of whether the other countries will buy into it. So far only three countries are clearly on board. Two other countries have also engaged in trade but have either kept some technologies to themselves or simply not requested all the resources which they can potentially. I believe the reason that the countries aren’t all committed to collaboration on turn one comes down to our nature. We’re all a bunch of racists.

Now let me explain myself. The three countries who have thoroughly bought into the transparent collaboration plan are The North Face, Oceania, and Aadlandia. The presidents of those countries, Andrew Riggs, Parker Lowe, and me, are already friends outside the game. It’s no coincidence that we’re so quick to trust one another. That trust is being manifested in how freely we are sharing information and technology. It’s like our countries already share a history of friendship. I imagine that in the simulation the peoples of our countries speak the same language or regard their fellow nations highly. This dynamic reminds me of how some countries with close cultural ties such as the U.S. and the U.K. work well together. These closely aligned countries work well together because speaking the same language and sharing history of collaboration (I’m referring to the World Wars) help close allies cut through the chaff of excessive nationalism and make moves that benefit the entire globe. Oceania, Aadlandia, and The North Face have already crossed over to the point where they are not suspicious of one another and are only concerned with mutual support. Now we need to get everyone else on board with our plan.

If we want our initiative towards a peaceful globe to be successful we will need to acknowledge that our quick alliance is not necessarily representative of our plan’s superiority, but trust which we are bringing into the game. We have to convert people to our cause by showing how practical transparency is. I hope that the quick development enabled by trade will earn the trust of our fellow players in the simulation.

Finally, as we continue into the game I encourage my fellow players who are concerned with their country’s competitiveness to zoom out from the game and consider that we are one simulation of many. Don’t compete to make your country dominant in the simulation, but to make our simulation a model in the grand scheme of Statecraft. This will lead to community in the classroom, impressive accolades in the simulation, and an A+ for all.

christianosborne

What should keep one country from invading another?

In our game there have been two instances where territory has changed hands. On turn 2 when E.D.R.A. invaded Sapphire Island and on turn 4 when The North Face handed the Orion Mountains over to Dystopia. Both of these exchanges had three effects. Both of them increased the resources available to the country that gained the territory. They both had an effect on terrorist organizations. E.D.R.A. caused the Sword of the Amaru to rise while giving up the Orion Mountains removed the O.L.F. from the game. Finally, both territory exchanges changed the political landscape. When E.D.R.A. took Sapphire Island it signaled E.D.R.A.’s rejection of the open-border resource sharing system championed by Oceania and Aadlandia. Giving up the Orion Mountains signaled The North Face’s commitment to the TOPDOWN alliance. Both of these acquisitions were highly profitable and have put TOPDOWN far past the rest of the map in terms of resources and by extension technology.

Earlier in our simulation I suggested that the only way to prevent long term conquest would be to create consequences which outweighed the benefits of invasion. I hold to that statement and I can only shake my head as our countries failed to create those consequences before E.D.R.A. invaded Sapphire Island and set the pace of the arms race that has erupted since the game began. The diplomatic consequences had no physical effect and even cutting the E.D.R.A. out of the IPPG’s economic trade circle failed to devalue the invasion-Sapphire Island had a massive resource yield. If all countries had militarized on the first turn than a joint invasion would have provided a physical deterrent against Chairman Smith’s decision to invade Sapphire Island. But the IPPG’s obsession with finding the most efficient way for resources to be spent in the game did not provide for a plan B in case somebody decided to try and break ahead.

My view on conquest has become quite simple. If a country determines that the pros of an invasion outweigh the cons then they should take it. If the cons outweigh the pros then the country should not take it. Morals or need to preserve order should not get in the way of rational logic. So the responsibility of deterring invasion lies with all countries in the world. They must prevent real physical deterrents against invasion which logically demonstrate how the costs will outweigh the benefits. Balance is not achieved when everybody limits themselves to gums out of chivalry. In that situation a devious individual can fashion some teeth out of wood and upset the balance. Balance is achieved when everybody has teeth sharp enough to fatally bite everyone else, mutually assured destruction. TOPDOWN maintains balance by combining the agendas of two protective military biceps (Dystopia and E.D.R.A.) and a research and peace oriented diplomatic head (The North Face). Either bicep could decimate the other. My country survives comfortably because both of my neighbors see no logic in invading me for fear of counter-invasion by the other bicep and loss of research from me. I cannot say the same for the less advanced countries in the IPPG and I would advise them to make themselves useful and necessary to the balance of the world before my neighbors make…erm…logical moves.

I might have forgotten to update y'all for a bit there, sorry! Anyways, as you can see from the map above, World War Genovia has started. The official name of the operation is the FGC (F Genovia Convention). Basically, Genovia screwed everyone over and then didn't own up to their mistakes. Instead, they doubled down and played the victim when they were confronted about it. They never paid us back for the Globe of Frost. They also promised to share their resources from Sapphire Island with the rest of the world as a consequence from them breaking the Global Peace Award. They never did that. They also claim that nobody asked for it. The UN's response to that was basically "It was your responsibility to share the resources, not ours to request them". Anyways, the UN voted to either expel or condem Genovia (I don't know which). This cost them 5 PC. A big part of what caused this sudden anti-Genovia sentiment was 1. The idea that this is most likely the last turn of the simulation. 2. Genovia spent all of their resources on structures for building up their own Quality of Life score while they still owed tons of resources to the rest of the world. 3. Everyone was tired of the self-victimization that was going on in Genovia. All that being said, do I feel bad about what's going on? Yes, I do. I really don't want anyone to suffer from this whole thing. Does Genovia deserve the wrath of the entire world? Debatable. Truth be told, our country really doesn't have anything to gain from this venture. I think we mostly joined the coalition because of group think, well, that and resentment. It'll be interesting to see if the simulation ends after this turn like we all suspect it will or if our professor continues it on for another turn or two to see how this all plays out. At the moment, 2/3rds of Genovia and four other people from other countries are online, so needless to say, this is a big day in Statecraft history (for our world at least). I'll try to make sure to update you with more information! This has been really fun blogging about! :D

#statecraft #simulation #simulations #political science #statecraft international relations #collective action issues #intro to ir #statecraft ir #international affairs #international relations #spia #war #genovia #neptunia #international conflict #the girls are fighting #presidential alert: the girls are fighting

Well, I guess the inevitable finally happened. There is the first Statecraft war. It all happened because of Genovia's unlawful inquisition of Sapphire Island and the Amaru people (which we all knew was going to be an issue). The Northland (who has had a contenious history with Genovia due to the presence of the Orion Liberation Front and Genovia's use of Northland slave labor to mine the region) decided that they were going to use this as an opportunity to invade. I mean, personally I think that Genovia sort of had it coming. They lost everyone the five points we could have earned if we avoided violent conflict. If they didn't do that, nobody would be willing to risk an invasion that they knew would cost them and everyone else extra-credit. I think that we're probably going to take a neutral stance on this whole issue, but geez louise. I know that The Northland has the capabilities to build nuclear weapons, but only time will tell if they actually use them. The only people they seem interested in fighting are Genovia, and they physically cannot build nukes because of their trait of pacifism. That would make The Northland's nuclear attacks the first strike, losing their country additional bonus points. We also still have to discuss the issue of repayment for the Globe of Frost, though I suspect that the current war will be the main topic of interest in class tomorrow. There is also the whole issue of the Typhoon Pirates being harbored in Panem. So much to discuss in such little time! I will keep you updating on the happenings!

Statecraft update: We just bought the Globe of Frost, quite literally at the last minute. Our country, Neptunia, ended up taking on the brunt of the cost and buying the project outright. Genovia had already completed one turn on subzero physics, so that saved us 500 scientic knowledge. They then black market traded 1500 gold to get 500 more scientific knowledge which they used to instantly complete subzero physics. They then sent it over to us, and we used 1000 SK to rush buy particle chilling. We sent that over to the Northland who used one of their three free technologies won from the Einstein Research Lab to complete atmospheric engineering. Then, they sent that over to us, and we used our Manhattan Project to instantly complete Snow Creation. Finally, we put in the bid for the Globe of Frost that took another 500 of every resource on top of the free technology and 1000 SK we already gave, or at least I tried to. I don't know what exactly went wrong on the Statecraft IR website, but it wouldn't let me put in a bid for the Globe of Frost, only for the other Big Projects that we were capable of bidding on. I emailed statecraft help about the situation, but it fixed itself somehow? I don't know what happened, but we were able to bid at 3:45 PM for the Globe of Frost, so I did so. The man from Statecraft, Emelio, said that it should count as being bought this turn, so that's good. In the end, it cost the Northland 1 free technology, Genovia 1500 gold that they converted to 500 scientific knowledge, the People's Union of Genovia (not to be confused with Genovia) nothing, Neptunia (us) 1500 scientific knowledge, 500 gold, 500 oil, 500 steel, and 500 food, Marco Polo nothing (though they offered their Manhattan Project), and Panem 500 scientific knowledge. I/We need to work on how to evenly distribute this cost amongst the states now. I know, we should have worked it out before actually commiting to giving our resources towards the project, but alas, we ran out of time. We quite literally bought the Globe of Frost 15 minutes after the deadline. I wish that we had our dedicated Statecraft days on Mondays or Wednesdays instead of Fridays when the deadline for Big Project bids has already passed. Oh well, I know, we could have worked this out earlier, but we didn't. It's kinda a staple for me to procrastinate, but I was a bit dissapointed in our simulation for failing to work on the collective action problem until our countries literally started flooding. I guess solving it by Turn 5 is better than waiting until Turn 6 or 7 like most simulations do according to the Instructor's Manuals I've found online and the quiz on Statecraft. Here's to hoping that the Globe of Frost actually works. I'll make sure to udpate this blog next turn with updates since I haven't been able to find any online. Here's to talking to you soon!

How the world looks at the beginning of Turn 5 in our Statecraft Intro to IR world. Last turn, Genovia took over Sapphire Island, which we were none too happy about. It ruined our collective goal of avoiding armed conflict, which really sucks. :( In other news, the world started to flood this turn. If you are reading this because you're playing Statecraft, BUILD THE GLOBE OF FROST ON TURN 4. We have a single turn of subzero physics under our belt as a world. If I could start this game over from the beginning again, I would have made sure that one country in the world was dedicating one of their research slots to weather manipulation. That way, you can get subzero physics and particle chilling done for free in four turns. Then you just need to use two free technologies to buy atmospheric engineering and snow creation. To do that, you would either need to use two Manhattan Projects or one Einstein Research Lab/Moon Landing. Of course, this will be so much easier if the world collectively works on researching. That's what I've been working on in our Statecraft world. We all work together to collectively research and trade that research with each other. If we each tried to research everything on our own, it would take WAY too many turns to get anything meaningful done. I might update this blog about Statecraft in the future, I might not, who knows. We'll just have to see, but I am definitely worried about our world's future.