Have a gander at Silent Running's innovative effort SIMTERROR 05, in which a scenario unfolds around an Australian terror attack and various online personalities play the role of decision-makers who respond as the exercise unfolds. No-one knows how it's going to turn out, and meanwhile other bloggers are encouraged to react, analyze, etc.
This kind of thing is done frequently in the military and foreign policy establishments, and it's often quite educational. Will be interesting to see how it goes in the blogosphere. (Hat Tip to Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye)
Joe:
I saw your comment at SR. There is a URL for the category - SimTerror05
It's all starting to get...interesting.
there is a VERY serious problem with "simterror" .... its being done by a bunch of right-wing whackjobs.
In fact, the site hosting the exercise is completely unreliable --- on the same day the exercise was started, it accused a college professor of saying something she never said. In fact, simply by checking the SOURCE THAT WAS CITED by "Silent Running", it was clear that the professor in question had NOT said it.
In other words, Silent Running is run by liars, and the last thing you want to do is give any credence to a simulation that is run by people who flat out lie.
This attack soundbite has been brought to you by the ABLW (Association of Bitter Left-Wingers).
I know many of the people involved in this exercise. They are not all right wing (surprise!) and they certainly are not whackjobs. Simon of Simon World, a Winds team member? Hardly. Alan E. Brain? I have nothing but respect for him, and any reasonable person should. Etc.
The comment says more about PL than it does about the simulation, which is indeed getting interesting as the "players" for Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, al-Qaeda et. al. make their decisions.
Paul, what specifically bothers you about this simulation? Is it the hosting blog? Some aspect of how it was set up? Or the fact that it is being played out at all?
I'm asking that seriously (i.e. not as an attack), since I sometimes am involved in simulations pf various kinds done by pros and for academic research.
Remedial (001A) rhetoric lesson:
Citeless cites are a real problem. So is "going off".
If P. L. were willing, and/or if available tools made it easy, a more specific pointer to (a) the "accusation", and (b) the "source", would put the rest of us in a better position to think about the specifics he complains about. But P.L. probably figured that enough Google-able embedded clues were provided.
One swallow doesn't make a summer--that is, granting P.L.'s specific example for the sake of argument, it proves nothing about the overall quality of the exercise, per se.
Attention, as always, is a limiting factor. To paraphrase a Church of the Subgenius catchphrase, Google does not remove the terror of time--in particular, when one is dealing with he-said-she-said. "Drive-by" posts are low quality (in terms of intelligence, in either sense). Unfortunately, P.L.'s post above is a drive-by. There are a lot of them around, and there always have been.
And I've done some. But I've sworn off, and my rhetorical-"clean and sober" oath is sincere even if I backslide.
Here endeth the lesson.
/s/
Nortius Maximus
Paul, what specifically bothers you about this simulation?
mostly that it presents a paranoid right-wing fantasy of the nature of the events.....