I guess you could have had less trust in the other because you did not know what they were going to do. always have your own evil plan ready to use. Do you think what happened could possibly happen in the real world or was it just a result of the game?
Yeah, we really should have had a contingency plan. The problem was, our team was never in a good position, and never very strong, so the only way we possibly could have won is if the originally planned three-way tie between yellow, green, and blue happened. But as they soon realized, once we helped them destroy red, we were no longer of any use. And as proven by the destruction of red, if all other teams gang up on one, then it's almost impossible to avoid getting killed. So as much as I resent spending hours in peaceful negotiations with yellow only to be backstabbed, I understand their reasoning. We could have still managed a tie, though, if they hadn't killed us. In the real world? Yeah, I kind of do think that you always have to watch your back. But at the same time, it may be impossible to get anywhere without relying on other states for at least some time. I guess I can see the benefits of certain aspects of all of the different IR theories. Maybe a combination of them all is best in real-life diplomacy.
Still, after reading your posts, I guess you're content by now. It's so interesting to hear your perspective and accuracy of analysis.
I wonder if the "good"-ness of IR perspectives depends on whether you are an ally or enemy. Although realism existed for all the teams because it let them focus on achieving their goals, liberalism triumphed in the end, as it typically does in our globalized world. Yet, liberalism is exclusive because it does create the "self"/"other." In the game of Risk, Green was abolished, but in the real world, if Green somehow was able to build itself back up, who knows what the fate of the world would have been? I hate to use the be-all-end-all example, but revenge was the driving force for WWII.
I do agree that a balance of all three IR theories is a guide to healthy diplomacy. Do you think Green fell because it placed its faith in too much of one theory?
I suppose you could say that we fell because we were too liberal. We should have had a realist back-up plan, although I honestly don't know how much we could have done, being as weak as we were for most of the game. On the other hand, you could say that Red fell because they were too realist in their strategies. As far as I remember, they weren't strongly allied with anyone, and that started to scare all the rest of the groups, so we agreed to eliminate them. I guess you could throw constructivism in there too, since it seemed to me that Red created their identity as strong, scary, potentially very dangerous, and with no clear benevolent intentions.
I guess you could have had less trust in the other because you did not know what they were going to do. always have your own evil plan ready to use. Do you think what happened could possibly happen in the real world or was it just a result of the game?
ReplyDeleteYeah, we really should have had a contingency plan. The problem was, our team was never in a good position, and never very strong, so the only way we possibly could have won is if the originally planned three-way tie between yellow, green, and blue happened. But as they soon realized, once we helped them destroy red, we were no longer of any use. And as proven by the destruction of red, if all other teams gang up on one, then it's almost impossible to avoid getting killed. So as much as I resent spending hours in peaceful negotiations with yellow only to be backstabbed, I understand their reasoning. We could have still managed a tie, though, if they hadn't killed us.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world? Yeah, I kind of do think that you always have to watch your back. But at the same time, it may be impossible to get anywhere without relying on other states for at least some time.
I guess I can see the benefits of certain aspects of all of the different IR theories. Maybe a combination of them all is best in real-life diplomacy.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, here's a *hug*!
Still, after reading your posts, I guess you're content by now. It's so interesting to hear your perspective and accuracy of analysis.
I wonder if the "good"-ness of IR perspectives depends on whether you are an ally or enemy. Although realism existed for all the teams because it let them focus on achieving their goals, liberalism triumphed in the end, as it typically does in our globalized world. Yet, liberalism is exclusive because it does create the "self"/"other." In the game of Risk, Green was abolished, but in the real world, if Green somehow was able to build itself back up, who knows what the fate of the world would have been? I hate to use the be-all-end-all example, but revenge was the driving force for WWII.
I do agree that a balance of all three IR theories is a guide to healthy diplomacy. Do you think Green fell because it placed its faith in too much of one theory?
I suppose you could say that we fell because we were too liberal. We should have had a realist back-up plan, although I honestly don't know how much we could have done, being as weak as we were for most of the game.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, you could say that Red fell because they were too realist in their strategies. As far as I remember, they weren't strongly allied with anyone, and that started to scare all the rest of the groups, so we agreed to eliminate them. I guess you could throw constructivism in there too, since it seemed to me that Red created their identity as strong, scary, potentially very dangerous, and with no clear benevolent intentions.