In this round of the game, I think I was more focused on inclusion than anything else. In last round’s summaries, no one critiqued me directly. Nearly all of the feedback was more focused towards the group. This could be something we need to work on in the future, because I think we were all too afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. For my own feedback to myself, I tried to stick up for my own ideas more. If one of the group members was more aggressive with their idea, I would normally back off, even if I felt my idea was right simply because I felt it wasn’t worth making the person mad over. However, this could lead to me being walked over in a professional environment so when someone was very aggressive with sharing their ideas this round, I would at least try to understand why they felt their idea was more correct than mine before conceding.
In this round of the game, I think I was more focused on inclusion than anything else. In last round’s summaries, no one critiqued me directly. Nearly all of the feedback was more focused towards the group. This could be something we need to work on in the future, because I think we were all too afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. For my own feedback to myself, I tried to stick up for my own ideas more. If one of the group members was more aggressive with their idea, I would normally back off, even if I felt my idea was right simply because I felt it wasn’t worth making the person mad over. However, this could lead to me being walked over in a professional environment so when someone was very aggressive with sharing their ideas this round, I would at least try to understand why they felt their idea was more correct than mine before conceding.
In the context of our game, different communication styles were exhibited at different points. The most useful of the communication styles was assertive. It was mainly used when a rule needed to be clarified and someone had a good idea they were confident about. Assertive communication was also mainly used when discussing strategy. This would make sense since those offering a strategy are selling their idea and are confident in it. Aggressive communication was rarely used, but it was effective when it was used. It swiftly caused a decision to be made since no one wanted to challenge it, but it hurt relationships in the process because it caused those who were trumped to not feel validated. Passive communication was used by mainly one person, which was alright in our context because they did speak up when asked because we had a democratic environment. If we had a more aggressive game play environment, this person could have been talked over and not had their opinion listed to. Overall, assertive communication is the best, followed by passive in our context. Aggressive communication did establish a decision but at the cost of friendly-ness.
In the context of our game, different communication styles were exhibited at different points. The most useful of the communication styles was assertive. It was mainly used when a rule needed to be clarified and someone had a good idea they were confident about. Assertive communication was also mainly used when discussing strategy. This would make sense since those offering a strategy are selling their idea and are confident in it. Aggressive communication was rarely used, but it was effective when it was used. It swiftly caused a decision to be made since no one wanted to challenge it, but it hurt relationships in the process because it caused those who were trumped to not feel validated. Passive communication was used by mainly one person, which was alright in our context because they did speak up when asked because we had a democratic environment. If we had a more aggressive game play environment, this person could have been talked over and not had their opinion listed to. Overall, assertive communication is the best, followed by passive in our context. Aggressive communication did establish a decision but at the cost of friendly-ness.
Fishers’ Model for communication is very apparent in our small group communication. The organization of our meetings to play Zombicide parallels the communication model identically. When we first meet to play the scenario, we always have orientation where we uncomfortably make small talk until all members of the group arrive. Once everyone arrives and we need to determine the rules of the scenario, the conflict stage begins. We each take turns explaining our perspective of the conflict. Because none of us are invested in the game and because we want to get out of the meeting as soon as possible, we normally come to a solution pretty quickly and move on to the next potential conflict. By the time we finish establishing the rules and setup for the scenario, we have finished the emergence stage and we all have our roles in the group. For the rest of the game, we play at the reinforcement stage where we have our roles defined and we successfully play the rest of the game.
Fishers’ Model for communication is very apparent in our small group communication. The organization of our meetings to play Zombicide parallels the communication model identically. When we first meet to play the scenario, we always have orientation where we uncomfortably make small talk until all members of the group arrive. Once everyone arrives and we need to determine the rules of the scenario, the conflict stage begins. We each take turns explaining our perspective of the conflict. Because none of us are invested in the game and because we want to get out of the meeting as soon as possible, we normally come to a solution pretty quickly and move on to the next potential conflict. By the time we finish establishing the rules and setup for the scenario, we have finished the emergence stage and we all have our roles in the group. For the rest of the game, we play at the reinforcement stage where we have our roles defined and we successfully play the rest of the game.
