Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Win All You Can


  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#1 xlpanel

xlpanel

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:19 PM

This part of the course is really a disgrace and denial of competitiveness among humans and business corporations. First off, the scenario created by the game can NEVER happen in the real world, even if everyone involved is truly motivated to achieve the desirable outcome. Why? According to the staff, a 'successful' play of the game results in everyone gaining $$$$ and profit. To look at this from an economist standpoint, this is impossible. There is a set amount of wealth available in the world. For simplistic terms, lets just say $1000 total of wealth exists. If Person A-D all start with 250 each, THERE IS NO WAY that they can increase their collective wealth, as no more exists. The amount is capped. Now, the game effectively generates wealth. If everyone cooperates, everyone may end with 500 each. This would mean there was a total of 2000 in the wealth system, that only had 1000 before the game started. This means that: a. an impossible feat occured, creating wealth from nothing or b. more money was printed, thus decreasing the value of the money by half You cannot generate wealth out of nothing Next, look at this in a business perspective. Toyota, GM, Honda, and Ford can all cooperate together and each will earn (simplified) 400 dollars each. However, Ford decides that if he doesn't cooperate, his company can earn 2000 dollars total, while causing GM Honda and Toyota to lose money. Ford repeats this a few times, and eventually he is rolling in money and the other companies are out of business, as they went broke. Ford now gets practically every dollar spent to car companies, and makes more and more and more. Tell me this isn't the dream of every executive, do do business in such an efficient way that it drives out the competition. This game is just like communistic ideal. Under communism, if it worked, everyone would have at least 5x the wealth that they now have. Everyone would have an adequate house, big tv, etc. It would be better overall for everyone. But it doesn't work. Why? Joe sees that he can go to work and not work hard at all, and still get the same benefits as all the hard workers get. Larry sees joe not working and decides that if Joe doesn't work and gets everything, why should he work? A slippery slope dissolves into collapse This game is the same way. If all the companies worked together, every company would be better off. Production plants and inventions would be shared, resulting in a better overall product. But it doesn't work. Bottom line is that companies are driven by profits, and execs only care about their company. If they can earn an extra 800 a month, at the expense of 4 other companies losing 200 a month each, they do it. Say the total amount spent on cars by consumers is 10,000 (simplified). No matter what the companies do, only this amount will be spent. The pool of available wealth is capped. If everyone cooperates, each of 4 companies makes 2500 each. But, Company B develops a new extra fuel efficient car. It can either share that technology with the other companies, and keep it equal at 2500 OR he can use it himself, and make much more money. Now the breakdown is: Total 10000 A - 1500 B - 6500 C - 1500 D - 1500 Company B tripled their wealth at the expense of the other companies. It has to be this way, as there is only so much money that exists or is spent. Company B goes on to have employees driving 50,000 dollar cars and moving into gated neighborhoods. A,C, and D go on to pay less and less and lay off employees. Their employees are lucky if they can afford the rent and other things. Company B is more successful, and all because it did not follow the principles of the game of life. The execs of company B are determined to be successfuly and smart, and the other execs are stupid and failures. Now apply the game of life to the NFL. Not everyone can win in the NFL. The game of life would have it where the teams just ran kneeldowns over and over and no one ever scored. Every game would end in a tie. Thus, there would be no losers and that would greatly help the 'self esteem' of all the players. Every team would win 1/32 share of the SB every year. How many coaches are gonna go for that? The Game of Life cannot be applied to real life. I have to say, using my real life business skills, I analyzed the instruction card and saw that the only way I could lose is if every team held up the same color. I used math and saw that as long as I held up Red, 15/16 of the time I would win ((1/4)^4) at random. I knew immediately that this was 94% chance of winning. If any business had this sort of chance, they would jump on it immediately. The game ended with our team being one of the only ones to use real life principles laughing among ourselves at the other teams that were totally SHOCKED they were losing money. I guess that shows that being naive in the business world is not a good thing. Everyone is looking to make the bottom line higher and meet the line. Now, if you don't want to read a sentence from the syllabus, don't read it below. The syllabus suggests that after the game is over, as emotions will be running high, to join everyone together again by singing a song. Does this not say manipulation? The course creators think they can just manipulate everyone's emotions at will. That is an insult to me. Think superbowl. Do they give the losers a trophy to consle them and the winners together? No. The winners won, they have something to be proud of. The losers don't, except making it to the SB, and they were rewarded for that in ther conf champ game. This game is a complete disgrace to competitive spirit and the principles that successful businesses are founded on.
  • 0

#2 emb021

emb021

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 2603 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:41 PM

I believe the purpose of the game is to show that cooperation, rather then competition is what should be guiding us. The idea is the "You All Can Win", but only if you all cooperate. The mistake people playing the game is that each group is in competition with the others, when they should be cooperating. The mistake made is that each group is like their own company (where, yes, they should be competing), but that each group is part of a whole (patrols within a troop, committees within an org, departments within a company), and that as such, these subgroups should be working together for the overall group (unit, org, company) and not competing. Also, it has nothing to do with wealth generation or profit. You're playing a game and winning points, nothing more. HOW you play determines the points you get.
  • 0

#3 Mafaking

Mafaking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:46 PM

Well the game did get your emotions up. You went ahead and posted a 2 1/2 page word document complete with logical business analysis on a web site. The game does make emotions run high. For us it was done late during a second evening; fatigue and nerves were already running of edge. The concept is a sure fire way to get normal, well adjusted adults up in arms over a silly game. It worked in that regards as a few people had to walk off their emotions. This game is not unlike some of the personal games played within a patrol. Instantly the adult is left in the same dilemma as a 13 year old scout. For instance a scout during a PL election could chose his buddy as PL or the Life scout with more experience. Chose your buddy and the patrol suffers, chose the Life scout and your buddy will be mad. The game is meant to introduce strife. The game is also meant for you to have emotions that have not surfaced for twenty years. Maturity, the business world and life in general has numbed the adult from having high emotions over a silly game (football excluded). Woodbadge is not a business finance course. Its a train the trainer course.
  • 0

#4 BDPT00

BDPT00

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:53 PM

I guess I didn't see the part of the syllabus that said this was a business game or something to do with the NFL. We refer to Scouting as a game with a purpose. It's intended to be a game where everybody wins. Everybody has an opportuinty to achieve the Aims of Scouting. I happen to think it would be wonderful if every Scout became a better citizen, and everyone's values were based on the Oath and Law. I don't see where your business model fits in Scouting. Are Scouts supposed to compete against each other because there's a limited number of values to go around? I'm sure that everyone in the troop had a wonderful time because somebody didn't seem to get the point of the game. I'm glad you think you "won." I'm afraid not many would agree. BDPT00
  • 0

#5 Lisabob

Lisabob

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4739 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:06 PM

So xl, where'd you do your Wood Badge course?
  • 0

#6 AvidSM

AvidSM

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 399 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:36 PM

xlpanel - I am sorry you did not have a positive experience with the "Win All You Can" game. From my personal experience with the game and from what I have heard from other Wood Badge staffers, it is not popular with them either. The way this game is supposed to work, the only score that matters is the total score of all the teams playing. The staffers running the game are supposed to show the team scores and then make a point of totaling them up after every round. And, in the middle of the game, the staffers running it are supposed to start saying, "Win all We Can! instead of "We All You Can!" If they don't do this, or the people playing don't notice that they are doing this, then the whole point of the game is missed. Which is what happened during the course that I staffed and at subsequent course run by our Council. It's a National syllabus, so the course Scoutmaster cannot change it. In fact, they sign a written agreement saying that they will follow the syllabus exactly as it is.
  • 0

#7 emb021

emb021

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 2603 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 03:20 PM

I was first exposed to the game in NLS. The staff there did a great job, and the name of the game "Win All You Can" was changed during the course to finally say "You All Can Win", which is the true point of the game. But if the participants aren't paying attention, they won't notice it. (this was done both thru what the staff was saying, and well as 4 signs with those words that got changed during the course of the game). Then I staffed 21CWB which also used the game. Frankly I didn't think it was as well done. But as a newbie staff, there wasn't anything I could do. I was told they were doing the game the way it was shown at the WB CDC. But I still fealt they didn't do it well. My fraternity now incorporates a variation of it in one of our training courses (its one focused on conflict resolution- hmmm). Again, if its not done right, the lessons get lost. One thing I find missing from this version is the subtle name change done in NLS.
  • 0

#8 lrsap

lrsap

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 171 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 06:23 PM

This is exactly like a training course on collaboration I am putting together at work. Using the catapult from the Webelos handbook, each team is going to get a box of supplies needed. Problem is, there will be an item missing from each box that will have been "accidentally" placed in the other team's box. These items can easily be retrieved if they run back to their desks. The object of the game will be stated as "The goal is for each team to assemble their catapult and fire a marshmallow. This is a timed activity." Then, after the expected firing of marshmallows at each other, they will be informed that there was only one team in the room. Basically, the course will be about recognizing who your team actually is, a little (I hate to use an overdone term) outside the box type of thinking. I remember the game from my WB course (G.O. Beaver SR729), and we had a blast. I never understood those who pay the money, give up their time, and then be a miserable cuss for 6 days in the woods. xpanel, glad you won, and I hope it made you happy. But as far as I can tell, the only Wood Badge trophy I ever received were the beads my Wolf Cub son placed around my neck at my beading ceremony.
  • 0

#9 scoutldr

scoutldr

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4431 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 06:53 PM

Sounds like they need to retire that game. Nowadays, we just print enough money so everyone gets what they want.
  • 0

#10 xlpanel

xlpanel

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:08 PM

I understand what the game was supposed to accomplish, and agree it has a message, but that message is best served in a noncompetitive setting. In the game, you are organized into 4 different competing teams. Teams and competing are important here. Everyone on the TEAM cooperates together for the best for everyone. For example, only the guy whose card is agreed upon holds it up. The guy who is not supposed to hold up his card does not, showing cooperativeness, working together for a TEAM goal. A scout unit is a TEAM. It is one team only, and shouldn't have 4 sub teams running it. Everyone should work together for their unit. But their unit is one. If the game was changed, such as the 4 competing teams ALL won points only when all green, or ALL lost points when all were red, this would better serve the purpose of the game. But in reference to when we had the game, the points were $, and for example the directions were Red-Green 3-1 Red Win $100 EA, Green Lose $300 2-2 Red Win $200 EA Green Lose 200 EA 1-3 Red Win #00 Green lose 100 EA These clearly demonstrate the market thing I was talking about, where the money is capped. Everything equals out. However, the 0-4 count effectively generates $. And win all we can was not used, the guys had signs, and (pretended) to accidentally get switched so they read you all can win.
  • 0

#11 Lisabob

Lisabob

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4739 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:45 AM

So, xl, where'd you do your wood badge course?
  • 0

#12 boomerscout

boomerscout

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 846 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:10 PM

Oh, yuck! It seems as if the presenters of this game were totally inept in its presentation. Looks like no-one in your entire group got the point of it. If we take the troop as a unit, we always have competition within in it as patrol competitions. Yet, we expect the troop as a whole to always hike in the same direction. Maybe you could take the course again, but elsewhere. Wealth is created out of nothing lots of times. An author creates a bestseller out of nothing, inventors create that which hasn't been seen before -- such as the World Wide Web. Even banks create money out of thin air when they make more loans than they have deposits (OK, not such a good example). If the money supply was truly fixed, then swelling populations would never find jobs.
  • 0

#13 xlpanel

xlpanel

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:51 PM

Wealth cannot be created out of nothing. Say the collective populus of a town has 10,000. An author writes a book. She has invested time and effort in it and made something that people want to buy. People buy the book. Now the author has 2,000 for writing it. But the populus only has 8000 left. I took my course at the end of april this year in the Sam Houston Area Council. Was just going back through some of the old stuff from it, and decided to talk about the game.
  • 0

#14 scoutldr

scoutldr

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4431 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 03:46 PM

"Wealth cannot be created out of nothing" You obviously haven't been following politics.
  • 0

#15 dg98adams

dg98adams

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 726 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:02 PM

I'm on staff 4 the WB course next month, and did not really get the "game" during staff training or hear the majority of the instructions. I was still working on following the poorly copied woggle instructions. I don't think any of the other "new" TG's did well either.
  • 0

#16 OldGreyEagle

OldGreyEagle

    Super Moderator

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:24 PM

So xlpanel, what critter are you?
  • 0

#17 theysawyoucomin'

theysawyoucomin'

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 07:53 AM

I thought the game was valid given the context of the WB course. I don't believe there will ever be world peace though it is something to strive for. The game does bring out emotions and is symbolic in it's teaching. Google Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". I think he had a point to make I think the game does too. I wish you had not divulged the entire game here because I think it has worth and you have basically ruined the value to those heading for the course. As a commissioned sales rep I have a very stressful job that I feel is one of the last bastions of capitalism left in a "strong carry the weak" world. I agree it is against the laws of nature not to be in competition. I am not at all for the everybody gets a trophy mindset. I thought the game was more about honor and keeping your word to others. That is what I left the game with.
  • 0

#18 xlpanel

xlpanel

    Member

  • Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 12:47 PM

I can certainly say our team kept our word. At the caucuses we explicitly stated that we were not going to follow a scheme in which everyone holds up the same color. I was a buffalo. And I am familiar with a Modest Proposal, if I remember what it is correctly. I think it is about the benefits of eating young kids or something? Its been a couple of year since I read it. And for whomever got mad that I posted stuff about what happens at WB, how would you have discussed this game.... "I played a game at woodbadge, um, can't tell you which one it was, and I didn't like it. I can't tell you why I didn't like it because that would reveal what happens in it. I don't even know why I made this thread because no one can tell what I am talking about, and if they can, they can't post anything constructive as they, too, cannot reveal any secrets." This whole section is for discussing WB. If I can't post what happens it it, how can I discuss it?
  • 0

#19 boomerscout

boomerscout

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 846 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 12:59 PM

wealth can always be created. Examples: couple guys go out & find some gold. they sell it to the mint in return for some of the newly produced coinage, couple other guys go over the mountain to cut down some trees on unclaimed land. Town can now replace its straw huts with wooden shacks--town becomes wealthier. Scouts help monastery monks go fishing. They bring back enough fish that people can stop raising turnips in their home garden and have time for other things. Someone else invents the Internet; people use it to educate themselves-town becomes wealthier. The pie can always be made bigger if you've the will
  • 0

#20 scoutldr

scoutldr

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4431 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 01:21 PM

Boomer...your example depends on someone getting off their duffs and creating something of value from a raw material. That's the piece that's missing from today's society. Wealth cannot be "created"...it is merely a raw material (supply) which is transformed into something that someone else thinks has value (demand). When the "supply" becomes available for free (i.e., redistributed to those who don't pay for it), it ceases to have value (wealth), and there is no longer an incentive for someone to get off their duffs. And that will be the end of our society as we know it.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq