I was given this card game for Christmas by my best friend and fellow "book club" member. If you are a prepper, you REALLY need to get this game. No joke. This game is not your average game. This game is the ultimate prepper game. I give it 5 bananas.
The Survvalist Blog presents one of these cards each Tuesday and then the comment section fills with discussion about it. The cards are certainly interesting but the responses have a mediocre signal to noise ratio but still have a few gems scattered about. Here are links to previous installments: Conflicted Tuesday Conflicted Tuesday 2 Conflicted Tuesday 3 Conflicted Tuesday 4 AT
The last time our group played a card game it was Uno, and a single game lasted an hour and a half. That could be due to the copious amounts of apple pie shine involved, but I shudder to think how long we could drag this particular card game out... it does look intriguing though. I'll add it to the list.
Melbo, would this be a bug/glitch? In post one of this thread, In Falcon15's first sentence the words "card game" are high lighted like a link. When you click on it, here is where I was sent. | Lids.com Not only was I sent here, but it did so closing survival monkey shut behind me and I couldn't hit "back" to go back to survival monkey. I sort of hate it when that happens. I was expecting a link to the card game discussed.
I looked up "conflicted card game" on google and found it. We should present a scenario once a week comment on it... Like- "You have 7 gallons of fuel left and 3 vehicles. You have 100 miles of mixed easy/hard terrain or 150 miles of improved surface roads with possible hostile actors. One vehicle is a small efficient car, the next a large pickup truck, and a motorcycle. You have five people in your group of varying ages. What vehicle do you take and why?" (I made that up, but it's in the spirit of the game.)
@Airtime Thankyou for posting the links, Airtime. I don't know what the rest of the collection of survival case study scenarios consist of, but the four examples cited in AT's links seem to represent a combination of social science type values clarification exercises, and military quick decision exercises. Each scenario briefly describes a survival situation, indicating the actors, their actions leading up to the scenario, some necessary explicit (and perhaps implicit) assumptions that frame the limits of the scenario, the actors' available or likely resources and capabilities, and the expectation of serious consequences to the survival group, depending on which course of action is taken. Each scenario seems to include a moral / ethical dilemma or dimension to it, hence my referring to the 'values clarrification' element of the simulation, to the game's name, "Conflicted". I would suggest, given the limited information that is incorporated into each scenario narrative, that there may be no right or wrong answers to the scenario, but that arriving at the "right" answer is not the actual object of this aspect of the simulation. The value of the moral / ethical dilemma component is in examining and evaluating the values of the simulation participants; identifying the key assumptions made in arriving at their solutions; considering the reasoning (and its soundness) in resolving the various moral / ethical challenges; and giving some insight into how prospective team members may potentially roll, when tough moral / ethical decisions have to be made. Each scenario starts off with an emergent situation that requires a course of action to be taken, with potential consequences for some or all of the scenario's actors. Because the situations seem to be imminently emergent, and that there is usually some urgent time or resource constraint to be factored in, this element of the exercise most resembles the military type of quick decision (training) exercise (QDE), when leaders are required to solve problems swiftly, in the face of incomplete information, time pressure, extreme psychological and physiological stress; and where a leader hasn't the luxury of spending several days in an ashram, contemplating their naval to arrive at the 'perfect' solution. Other interesting and useful references regarding intuitive and quick decision making (under pressure) are as follows: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/nwc_mccown.pdf Critical Decision Making Under Pressure: The Complete Article | Law Enforcement & Security Consulting http://www.lesc.net/system/files/Critical Decisions Under Pressure.pdf post to be continued....Chello
Here is yesterday's Conflicted posting: Tuesday Conflicted So, would it be worthwhile to have a Monkey discussion here instead of monkey posts over there based upon the Survivalist Blog Conflicted Tuesday each week? I am thinking the signal to noise ratio might be better. AT
I agree, perhaps we should start a Conflicted thread here. I own the current deck, and could pose the conflicted questions. Any interested?
As a published author myself, I would not want to violate anyone's hard earned copyrights. I'd suggest we just post the link each week to the Survivalist Blog (who secured permission) in a new thread and people read it there but post their comments in the appropriate thread here. And if someone was so inspired to post both places or follow discussion there to enhance their thinking, have at it.
Sorry, but I can not relate even a lil bit to the card. ONLY 2 Weeks worth of Food? I can veggies all summer every summer. Just home canned food alone I have a 2 YEAR supply! An it doesn't say you ONLY have a handgun & Only 300 rounds of Ammo for IT!! As for what I'd buy with the $200.......Alcohol. Cuz once my brain recognized that it was an EMP, I'm be thinking "This is gonna SUCK!"
I support Airtime's suggestion...replicating verbatum what's on the cards on this site would go well beyond fair dealing and would be a breach of copyright: something that could have adverse consequences for the site and the site owner. That said...any discussion consequent to our own individual personal research at the "Conflicted" site is entirely our own business, and well worth sharing with each other. It would be a gesture of good faith to post appropriate responses to the conflicted site, but that would be the responsibility of individual post authors to do that if they wished, as a voluntary thing.
I didn't suggest replicating the cards. I suggested coming up with our own questions to ponder. I just kept it within the confines of the game's spirit- short, ambiguous scenarios to test your decision making skills.
Looks like an interesting game, I would like to buy both decks but I dont do Paypal..any other way to get them?
I can contact the creator of the card game directly and see what he says about it. I'll post here when I have an answer.
After getting a deck, I must say that I was quite disappointed. It seems that there are two different problems with what I read. Problem 1- Needs a fact checker. The first card I read was a great example of this. It was about an aircraft losing 1/3 power with three people aboard. First of all, engines either work or they stop working. There is no "we only have 2/3 power output". If and when the engine quits, you are gliding to a landing where you run out of altitude. If an engine looses a cylinder, it is only a matter of minutes until you are going to be gliding anyway (ask me about that sometime- it was a hell of a ride that day). If it is a multiengine aircraft and you loose an engine, the aircraft is rated to stay aloft with one engine running, even if it is the critical engine. The question has no basis in reality. What the author of the cards really wants, is for you to concentrate on one thing. That's Problem 2- all the questions and scenarios come down to one question; who in your party are you going to let die? If that's all the cards are asking for, you may as well only have one card in the deck. Pull it out and it would say, "There are three of you, one must die. Choose." If I stepped on anyone's toes about copyright infringement with that one, I'm sorry. Reading through the entire deck, that's all I could get out of them. The scenarios could be made up a bit better and built on solid, actual problems that require one to think of more than which one of his friends is the least valuable to him at the time. Problem solving comes in many forms.
I don't think your commentary infringes on copyright...it would be considered fair and reasonable dealing in respect of reviewing and critiquing the product. Your observations about the value of the product and its benefits or limitations are your own intellectual property and copyright to you.
I am a published author and radio show host. I suggest we tone the suggestions down until I speak to the creator and owner of Conflicted.
