It's kind of a cute one-off, but I have two problems with this.
First, on a political level, they come right out and tell you that you can't win. While this is a valid view and the point made by it is an important one, it ignores a lot of the non-bombing aspects of international policy. I mean, the other perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from this scenario is that there's no reason to distinguish between terrorists and civilians and that we might as well just kill them all.
Second, on an advocacy level, this suffers from a serious preaching-to-the-choir problem. I mean anyone who doesn't immediately understand the point being made is going to do one of two things: quickly grow bored because the game mechanic is lacking (after all, they tell you you can't win) and go away, or respond to the 'creation' of additional terrorists with a gleeful "Cool! More targets!"
I definitely like the larger premise, but I think the implementation could use a little fine-tuning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
First, on a political level, they come right out and tell you that you can't win. While this is a valid view and the point made by it is an important one, it ignores a lot of the non-bombing aspects of international policy. I mean, the other perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from this scenario is that there's no reason to distinguish between terrorists and civilians and that we might as well just kill them all.
Second, on an advocacy level, this suffers from a serious preaching-to-the-choir problem. I mean anyone who doesn't immediately understand the point being made is going to do one of two things: quickly grow bored because the game mechanic is lacking (after all, they tell you you can't win) and go away, or respond to the 'creation' of additional terrorists with a gleeful "Cool! More targets!"
I definitely like the larger premise, but I think the implementation could use a little fine-tuning.