How to play

Almejar 2030 is an argumentation game in which players play social roles in the context of an economic activity that promotes development, but at the same time triggers social friction. The game unfolds in three stages.

Simplified explanation

Step 1 - ONLINE - Raffle the roles that represent the parties in a situation of social litigation and the roles of impartial third parties that will help in the search for sustainability

Step 2 - OFFLINE - Preparation of the debate and the course of the argumentative discussion

Action 4: The groups talk internally, search for information or ask for clarification to prepare the argumentation they will use in the debate.

Action 5: The oral discussion begins and the clock starts counting 30 minutes, if there are few parties, or 60 minutes, if there are many. The parties intervene successively during equal periods of time (about 5 minutes), presenting their arguments and their pretensions, under the guidance or under the watchful eye of an impartial third party who will try to support the formation of consensus or the acceptance of mutual concessions in the pursuit of sustainability. The impartial third party adopts a more or less intervening posture, depending on their role (judge, mediator, conciliator, arbitrator).

Step 3 - ONLINE - Drawing a random catastrophic event

Step 4 - OFFLINE - Continuation of the post-disaster debate and arrival at a more sustainable situation

Action 7: The discussion continues for 30 minutes in the same order, incorporating new arguments into the debate, seeking to adapt consensus or acceptable solutions to the new situation.

Action 8: The impartial third party will draw up, with the assistance of the parties, a document that crystallizes the consensus generated, the concessions negotiated, the benefits mutually accepted by the parties or the judicial or arbitral award.

Step 5 - OFFLINE - Final evaluation

The participants can give their opinion on what went well and not well in the debate.

Detailed explanation

Ideally there should be between 3 and 9 different "parties to the conflict". In medium groups (10-30), participants can be organized into groups (from 2 to 4) of representatives of the same party to the conflict, who participate through a spokesperson/lawyer. Other participants will assume the role of judge, or conciliator, mediator or arbiter. In large groups (30-50 participants) a collective jury may be constituted which, in the end, will be able to pronounce on the validity, reasoning and coherence of the arguments and the relevance of the interests, helping the role of the judge (individual or collective), conciliator, mediator or arbitrator, contributing to the construction of a sustainable solution.

Phase 1. Construction of arguments:

Participants have a short period of time to organize an argumentative rhetoric, whenever possible convening norms or principles of positive, national, international or European law, as well as jurisprudence, to defend the interests of the group they represent. Due to the distribution of roles, some will have a more positive and others a more negative attitude towards the activity in question.

Phase 2. First round of conciliatory debate:

The parties to the conflict orally present their arguments, in a synthetic and concise manner, through speeches that follow one another in random order. Replicas or rejoinders may be admitted depending on the number of parties and the total time available. Students with the role of judge (individual or collective), conciliator, mediator or arbitrator can assume a more or less active attitude depending on their role. The parties can develop defense or attack strategies as they deem most appropriate to the success of their claims.

Phase 3. Catastrophic event:

After the first round of debate a catastrophic event occurs. The social, economic and environmental effects of the catastrophic event, as well as the legal framework in domestic, European and international law are briefly explained. Catastrophic events can heighten vulnerabilities and exacerbate the conflict or, on the contrary, they can relativize confrontations and generate unexpected solidarities and collaboration between parties.

Phase 4. Second round of conciliatory debate:

The parties react to the catastrophic event once again orally presenting arguments in defense of their rights and interests in light of the new catastrophe scenario. The speeches now follow each other in reverse order. Replicas may be admitted depending on the number of parties and the total time available. The parties can change their strategy, switching from defense to attack or vice versa. In this phase, alliances, agreements or associations can be celebrated between the parties depending on the strategy they have outlined.

Phase 5. (optional) Final Synthesis (10-20 minutes).

Depending on the time available, this phase can take place immediately after the end of the debate or be developed after the game. Participants, in the roles of judge (individual or collective), conciliator, mediator or arbitrator, will produce and give an oral reading of:

a) a judgment, or

b) an arbitration decision, or

c) a multilateral conciliation agreement or

d ) a term of understanding of the parties

that reflects the legitimate concerns of the representatives, the necessary measures to be adopted in the future to safeguard rights and interests and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. Alternatively, if the final synthesis is done as homework, it will be presented and discussed at the beginning of the next class or via a sharing and opinion polling platform such as slido.com.