Deep Games win! And some remarks

I read with great interest the Deep Games Protocol deliverable made by @Massimo . Good work! I finally understood this Lego thing you always talk about.


  1. It's a long one  (28 pages!) and some of it seems to be taken from some other publication that describes the LSP method. I refer here to pages from 7 (Workshop facilitation method) to 25, where the project, its goals or partners are never mentioned; but not to the last section (Digital interaction activities after the workshop). Have you considered making a much sorter deliverable that refers to the publication containing the LSP methodology?
  2. Deep Games are described in our proposal as a safe, offline engagement channel. You seem to have decided to make them a prototyping activity. Are we sure about that? Do we need a discussion? Should we move it from WP1 (engagement) to WP3 (prototyping)? If this is a decision, should we not make it explicit in the deliverable? These are all real, not rhetorical questions. I could see the case for the "old" version of Deep Games, but maybe an even better case can be made for the "new" one. 

See also my comments on the Google Doc.

For your convenience, here is the GA’s language on Deep Games:

This task focuses on running reflection activities that, by their nature, need a more protected environment for interaction than the radically transparent OpenCare online platform. 6-10 focus groups of around 10 participants will be exposed to scenario simulations, role-playing games, and descriptions of provoking narratives about community-provided care, to evaluate the impact of different governance strategies, and value propositions composition of the communities, on the overall trajectories of the project and its ethical dimension. All activities will be documented, and the documentation (if approved by the focus groups members) will be shared on the platform.

The aim is to obtain a two-fold return: onboarding of some members of the focus groups, whom will share their experience, and possibly repeat it in different scales and context with other community members; and the ethnographic evaluation of the dynamics and values emerged during the session, which will become available as documentation for the partners.

1 Like

One more thing: describe the ideal participants to the activity?

The methodology is very clear in the document. Maybe a few words could be added to tell the reader what kind of participants you have in mind. Students? Doctors and patients? Entrepreneurs in care giving? Evasive entrepreneur-types?