1. From our first game, one of the most important feedbacks we tried to address was to bring everyone into the conversation equally. We heavily focused on finding a time where we could all play the game together and not leave anyone out. We found that an early Monday morning worked best for us, and we were all able to play and communicate with each other effectively. Also from the first game that we played, we realized that moving around the map fast was key. We switched the characters around. We replaced Doug with Wanda because of her ability allowing her to move farther per turn.This time we were also a lot more balanced in our participation as it seemed that no one outspoke or led the group in any particular way, and no one was quiet.
2. From the two very different communication sets in class, I saw that myself and my teammates were mainly characterized in three groups; active, thinkers, and connectors. People like Colette and Tristan were primarily connectors because they’d try to participate and lead the group while also thinking of decisions based on numbers(chances of the dice landing on a certain number). I’d say Josh is more an active communication style because he tries to lead the group and keep track of whose turn it is so everyone is participating. On the other hand, I’d say Dylan and I are thinkers because we prefer to analyze the entire situation and come up with ideas of how to beat it before we get in a sticky situation (opening this door now or later). Sometimes, thinkers almost ruin the fun because there’s no risk involved since there’s already a concrete plan set in stone before we even start playing. This is somewhat detrimental, but communication styles like connectors are nice to have around because they can prevent isolation and bring people with different communication styles together. Finally, I think this set is a lot more effective in a team project as it eliminates labeling of manipulators, aggressives, and passive-aggressives which are severely negative factors in a group setting.
3. During our game, you could see the flow of Fischer’s decision making model within our conversations. We’d always somewhat orientate ourselves and generate different ideas as to what we should do which would lead to conflict. Eventually, we would emerge with a decision that had to be compromised with others in our group. Finally, we’d reinforce that decision and justify it with our gameplay. Specifically, our group handles conflict by looking at the positives and negatives that an idea has to our overall goal in the situation/game and we decide if it’s the best possible decision.
