I Helped Design The Election Simulation 'Parlor Game' Rebekah Mercer Got, And It's Not What You Think

from the the-strangest-timeline dept

How was your Monday? Mine was odd. Have you ever seen a news story where you know the reports are getting things wrong? This is like that, but on steroids. In fact, this was a story in which not only were the basic points wrong, but the wrongness started to go viral.

Jane Mayer, the New Yorker's famed reporter, published a short piece talking about how Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who helped fund Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica and helped get Donald Trump elected President, had "played" a new parlor game, called "Machine Learning President," in which characters could role play the election:

In March, on a ski vacation at a rented house near Vail, Colorado, she brought a batch of copies of the “Rules of Play” for an elaborate parlor game called the Machine Learning President. Essentially, it is a race to the Oval Office in three fifteen-minute rounds. It’s a role-playing game, more like Assassin than like Monopoly, although players of this game do start out with an allotment of “cash” to spend on pushing their agendas, which can include “algorithmic policing” and “mass deportation.”

“Tonight, the name of the game is power,” reads the first page of the “Rules of Play.” Each player, it goes on, “will assume a new political identity.” Instead of becoming Colonel Mustard or Mrs. Peacock, as in the board game Clue, each player takes on the role of a political candidate or a “faction,” in the game’s parlance. Among the possible roles are Mike Pence, Elizabeth Warren, Black Lives Matter, Russia, Y Combinator, Tom Steyer, Wall Street, Evangelicals, the Koch Network, and Robert Mercer himself.

There's more in the New Yorker article, and you can read how Mayer describes the game, but, well, I was a part of the team that developed "Machine Learning President." We didn't design it for the Mercers to get to relive their successful electioneering... but that's certainly the way the internet took the story.

Splinternews had a story entitled simply "What the Fuck???" and its sister publication Jezebel had one entitled "Evil Billionaires Play a Board Game Where They Pretend to Have Total Control Over the American Political System Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha". Ha ha ha ha ha. Except, um, that's not the actual story. Kate Conger at Gizmodo wrote up a much better version detailing the actual history of the game, but since I was there, I figured I might as well tell you the real story.

First off, no, this was not a game for rich evil billionaires to relive the election and the joys of playing with the populace. This was actually in response to the 2016 election, and how the role the internet played in that election took a lot of people -- especially in Silicon Valley -- by surprise. The founders of Scout.ai, Brett Horvath and Berit Anderson, thought it might be useful to do some scenario planning to game out how tech might impact future elections, as a way to think through the potential challenges and pitfalls that might eat away at democracy. The founders of Scout recently spun out Guardians.ai to deal with the problem directly and protect pro-democracy groups around the globe from information warfare and cyber attacks. The idea behind the Machine Learning President was to use the game to get people to think about these issues, and to prepare for potential abuses of the system, while also thinking through ways that technology could be used for good -- to protect democracy.

Brett and Berit brought in game designer Randy Lubin of Diegetic Games, whose name you might recognize as our partner in releasing our adaptation of the CIA's card game. Brett, Berit and Randy worked on the core of the game. Randy helped bring me in, along with science fiction writer Eliot Peper from Scout, to help think though various scenarios of how tech and politics might mix in the future. The five of us helped put together a fun game in which players take on the roles of various campaigns, special interests and factions, and run through a full election cycle. A key part of the game is how money and influence play into getting out a message and how technology and different potential alliances may factor into all of this. Again, the idea was a simulation to help people think through what might happen and how it might impact things. It was not to predict the future or to get people hyped up on destroying democracy.

Indeed, part of the goal of the game was to look for areas of agreement, or where there could be bipartisan or non-partisan approaches to things, where we might be able to uncover productive areas to fix major problems in a world where not everyone is at the throats of people on "the other side." We had kind of hoped that the game might be useful in starting useful, nuanced conversations, rather than just people screaming at each other on Twitter. Ironically, the game resulted in people going nuts on Twitter.

The game was also designed to be non-partisan, and fairly balanced between the various positions and factions. It really is designed to be educational, and to see what happens. What kinds of technology may impact an election? What unexpected coalitions may form? How might certain candidates leverage technology or groups to achieve their goals?

We ran the game in San Francisco one evening in early February with about 40 attendees. It was a lot of fun, according to every attendee we spoke to. People got quite excited about it and certainly got deeply into the roles they were assigned. It was fascinating to see what kinds of deals people were trying to make, and how different groups decided to make use of their money or influence. It was not designed, nor could it be used, as a way to happily relive past electoral conquests. For what it's worth, when we played in SF, the end result was Kamala Harris winning the 2020 election over Mike Pence, who defeated Condoleezza Rice in the GOP primary (don't ask what happened to Trump) - in part because Rice, surprisingly, ended up endorsing Harris over Pence

And here's the thing: it's unlikely that Rebekah Mercer and her friends actually played the game, despite what Mayer's reporting says (and what others are now reporting). From the reporting, it appears that she got her hands on the general rules that all the players got, as well as maybe a few of the character sheets. Each attendee played as a certain character, and each player got a sheet about that character, how much money and influence they had and what sorts of policies they supported as well as what overall goals they sought to achieve in the game. But playing the actual game requires a lot more -- including a bunch of facilitators who understand the game, and a backend engine that they most certainly did not have (nor would they have understood it if they had seen it). Only the very small team of folks who were involved in the game have access to that.

Though, if anyone actually wants to set up an event to play this election simulation -- feel free to reach out to us or to Scout and it can be set up. It actually is fun and educational.

Still, what was amazing was to watch people react online -- almost all of them horrified, believing that the Mercers themselves had made a game that appeared to be mocking the public. The New Yorker itself claimed that it was a way for the Mercers to "relive" the 2016 election:

Max Temkin, the creator of Cards Against Humanity, unfortunately believed the Mercers themselves designed the game, and was pretty upset about it:

Others reported being "slack-jawed and stunned":

Another popular one was for people to suggest that this all showed that the public was "playthings" and that this was "all a game" to them:


And my favorite may be reporter Ashley Feinberg who described it as "conservative billionaire dungeons and dragons."

And, look, from Mayer's initial reporting, I can totally see how people would jump to this conclusion. Lots of people don't like the Mercers, and they appeared to have a game -- and part of that game includes policy goals that many people find despicable, including mass deportation of undocumented individuals. And, of course, there's a long history of governments, military, intelligence agencies, campaign and more using scenario planning games to anticipate the future. I mean, why do you think the CIA started creating games (that we're now publishing...)?

But this game wasn't designed to relive the last election or to celebrate these things. It was designed as a scenario planning tool to think how tech can impact future elections. And, again, the Mercers were most likely unable to play it without facilitators or access to the backend of the game. The game is interesting. But not in the way that people seem to have immediately responded.

Even more ironic: part of the reason for the game was to get people to think through what happens when disinformation and "fake news" about hot topics related to politics spread virally on sites like Twitter. And what happens? Misinformation about the game spread virally on Twitter. Life is weird sometimes.

Still, to some extent, we're amazed that the Mercers found the rules of the game interesting enough to discuss or even attempt to play. It certainly suggests we created something that touches on important ideas. And the team of folks who created and ran that game are more than willing to host more rounds of the game in the future.

So, uh, anyone want to play?


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:17pm

    Greetings Professor Falken

    Joshua/WOPR: Greetings, Professor Falken
    Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
    Joshua/WOPR: A strange game (politics). The only winning move is not to play.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:29pm

      A small correction..

      The only winning move is to stop the sociopaths and psychopaths from playing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 27 Jun 2018 @ 2:10am

        Re: A small correction..

        Exactly. People choosing not to play is what leads to a lot of the things that are wrong at the moment. Only the voices of the stupid or self-interested are heard, and not the majority who don't agree with what's being voted for.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:33pm

    Dichotomy

    But this game wasn't designed to relive the last election or to celebrate these things. It was designed as a scenario planning tool to think how tech can impact future elections.

    Not gonna comment on the Mercers, but as any game developer will tell you, how you designed the game to be played and how your customers ultimately end up playing it often end up on opposite sides of the spectrum.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:36pm

    We had kind of hoped that the game might be useful in starting useful, nuanced conversations, rather than just people screaming at each other on Twitter. Ironically, the game resulted in people going nuts on Twitter.

    You expected the Twits to not act like twits?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:40pm

    I'd say our educational system (generally speaking) is in need of an emergency upgrade for years now. Maybe with few exceptions or considering some countries are far ahead in this upgrade thing while others are far behind.

    I mean, what do schools prepare kids for? I mean, sure chemistry is important, mathematics and language are critical but do we teach critical thinking at school? Taxes, basic survivability skills (heck, how to fry a goddamn egg), politics, sociology. You don't need to be an expert, you need basic knowledge and more importantly you need to know how to navigate through uncharted waters (ie: stuff you don't understand), you need tools to be a better person.

    I'm afraid a lot of bad will have to happen before we finally dedicate attention to this issue in a sane, nuanced way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chick, 27 Jun 2018 @ 8:13am

      Re:

      Well, the best things I learned in school were in courses that were technically optional (for Canada, in my local education system): law and business math (aka. taxes and mortgaging interest lessons, mostly).

      If I'd been taught some critical thinking, the closest I got to it was mandatory "Media" classes tacked on to my English courses for a week or two because of some McLuhan famous Canadian guy. ;)

      The biggest problem with most schooling is that they're (as a government institution) probably terrified of telling you what to do with your mind/knowledge. If critical thinking leads you to distrust authority, like Principals and MPs, why teach it at all?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 27 Jun 2018 @ 8:21am

        Re: Re:

        Thinking back on classes from Elementary up through grad-school at the Uni, I can't think of any schools that taught critical thinking. One or two individual teachers here and there did, but the schools actually tended to discourage it as it made it harder to "educate" the "masses". They want programmed cogs for the wheels of society rather than educated individuals.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:42pm

    "All right, so we made a game that fascists are using to jerk themselves off with, but our intentions were good!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    US Law Professor, 26 Jun 2018 @ 1:49pm

    Machine Learning President

    Mike,

    W/r/t the invitation to play the game, I'd love to chat about whether it might be suitable for a two-hour class in a seminar about media, law, and 21st century information technology with 15 students at a US Law School. If I understand the comment formats, you have my email. Drop me a line if you are interested.

    Thanks!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    amoshias (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 5:08pm

    Yes, I would definitely love to play... And I think my group of dc-based, political gamer geeks would love an experience like this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bergman (profile), 26 Jun 2018 @ 9:40pm

    I feel much the same way

    When I see/hear someone in an MMORPG going off about why a slang term for young male homosexuals has anything at all to do with a game.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tin Samuel, 27 Jun 2018 @ 7:58am

    I'm down

    Mike, would love to play this game. What do I need to do to get a couple rounds together? It would be the perfect coffee shop game for 50 people or so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 27 Jun 2018 @ 10:06am

    A game of media click-bait

    It sounds to me like you designed a game to test the media and click-bait headlines.
    It goes something like this:

    The New Yorker reports that the Mercers have a game.
    Next, the "Cards Against Humanity" creator sees the click-bait headline but doesn't read the story and sends out a tweet about how he's outraged.
    Then another media website runs a story about how the "Cards" guy is outraged by the Mercers.

    Yet NO ONE actually reads the story that says they didn't play the game! It's all media "outrage" and reporting on other people's stories.
    Where's the in-depth reporting? Okay, maybe the original article has accurate and good information, but that's not much good if people are only reacting to the headline.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2018 @ 10:08am

    Nobody cares, Masnick. Karma bites you in the ass yet again. You’ll never learn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Jun 2018 @ 3:39pm

      Re:

      Nobody cares, Masnick. Karma bites you in the ass yet again. You’ll never learn.

      Given how many people have contacted us about the game, and the fact that this was the most popular post on the site yesterday... seems like... lots of people care?

      And, I'm confused as to what "karma" you think "bit me in the ass" here? I mean on both sides of the equation. What was bad about this for me? What did I do to deserve this?

      Look, if you're going to troll with asinine comments, at least have them make some sort of sense, okay? Is that so much to ask?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Jun 2018 @ 4:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Look, if you're going to troll with asinine comments, at least have them make some sort of sense, okay? Is that so much to ask?

        Expecting sense, consistency or coherence from trolls is only going to lead to disappointment.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Jack Galt, 27 Jun 2018 @ 1:44pm

    "Undocumented"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bshock, 27 Jun 2018 @ 2:48pm

    I didn't really understand why the story about this game and the Mercers went viral. For all I know, these creatures play Monopoly every Friday night and cheat each other blind. Big deal.

    I do note, however, that Monopoly was originally supposed to be a game that taught people about the evil futility of allowing the rise of monopolies. The vast majority of people either don't know or don't care about this fact -- they just play Monopoly like it was Chutes & Ladders with toy money, though perhaps they use it as a low-key outlet to greed and aggression. Nothing wrong with that, even if it misses the original point.

    For me, it still seems like the natural process where society scrapes off intentions and uses the evil core of whatever it touches.

    When "All In The Family" premiered on tv in the 1970s, it was meant to be a satire about a vile, racist jerk. Instead, a whole generation arose to think, "Hey, if Archie Bunker acts like that, so will I."

    When the film "Wall Street" appeared in the 1980s, it was meant to be a satire of vile, greedy business practices. Instead, it spawned endless wannabe-wealthy assholes who think of "Greed is good" as their slogan, rather than a hyperbolic joke.

    The Election Simulation game is probably a bit too involved for Joe Sixpack to welcome it onto his game table, but if that ever happened, you can bet that the point of the game would rapidly become how to corrupt elections with as much ruthless efficiency as possible.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Glenn, 27 Jun 2018 @ 2:52pm

    but the head...

    Mike - sounds inter... wait... sorry what were you saying? I was distracted by that woman's gigantic head. She's really got a head on her shoulders. She could be a head of state. Her looks are a heady blend of well-bred sophisticate and giant fuckin' head. How much head is too much head? She probably... never mind.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bstngaysoftwaredevs (profile), 10 Jul 2018 @ 6:59pm

    A Public Game

    Are you still offering to host/provide a copy of the game? I'd be interested in hosting a (semi-)public round.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.