"I don't necessarily think the game needs to be scrapped but I think the right lessons need to be derived from it. I'm not sure if it was a failure in leadership or a failure in the curriculum."
Kind of my feeling.
As noted, my first exposure to the game was as a participant in NLS. I thought it was well run, but then I know the staff for NLS spends about a week learning the course. I could tell that if the staff don't run the game right, there can be problems.
Then, when I staffed WB, I discovered we were going to do the game. I was a bit concerned as how they were running the game didn't match with how I saw it at NLS, and I felt it wouldn't go as well. The response I got was 'this is how we were told to run it at WB CDC', so I kept my mouth shut. We had problems with the game, and I didn't know if the issues were how WB does it compared to NLS, or how well they prepare the CDs or staff to run the game.
Later, I found my Fraternity had incorporated a version into our course on conflict resolution. Having seen the game go well and not so well, and IMO, the preparation of the staff was to me a vital element in its success, I was a little leary. One things that is different is that we actually don't split the group up into the team for the game UNTIL the game, so the participants are organized into patrol-size groups during the course. This avoids the built-in idea of patrol competition that can exist in WB. I have seen it done 2 now in this course, and overall they've gone well. I think is due in part to the absense of the use of groups thru the course. FWIW, we call it the 'red/green' game, and dispence with the "win all you can" terminology.
I don't know the ultimate basis for the game, but here is one website explaining it: http://peacebuilding...Win_All_You_Can
Note that the purpose is "To explore how sub-groups in a larger team can balance their desire to win more as a sub-group with their desire to win as a team". This, to me, is the point that is too often lost or not clear in the de-brief.