One Village, Six People Debrief (Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV
1
TimestampWhat role did you playHow well did you prepare your self and group role?How well did you explore needs and concerns?How well did you acknowledge the other group?How well did you control violence?How well did you engage in negotiation?How well did your group work together to meet your interests, uphold your values, and affirm your iden- tities? Please be specific.How well did the whole group work together to meet the interests, uphold the values, and affirm the identities of all the participants? Please be specific.How could the group improve the process and outcome next time?What was one peace step you observed being used by any member that had a great impact? What was the impact? Please be specific.What was one wars step you observed being used by any member that had a great impact? What was the impact? Please be specific.Username
2
3
4/8/2014 15:16:18JosephI did a great job in preparing by filling out all of the corresponding worksheets and making my opening statements. However, I found it difficult to stay in character, especially after lunch.My main concerns were the needs of others, so mostly I just listened. I think I was successful in meeting mine and others' needs of peace. In the end, we all came to a peaceful, reasonable agreement.I tried my best to stop conflict arising with Charles and myself. I did this by acknowledging his needs and accepting all reasonable conditions made by him or any others. No one was ignored and we all spoke together to figure out what to do with the land.Violence did not come into play at all. No threats were made either. A few insults were thrown around and sometimes people's ancestral values were put into question. Overall, with all things considered, we were pretty civil and had this idea of no violence in mind the whole time.At first I mostly listened to the others' needs after stressing my want for peace and their cooperation. Once they so quickly came to an agreement, I stressed that they should think things through. Then I wrote up a sort of treaty with all agreements clearly written out.Most members of the group agreed with my need for peace and often looked to me for mediation. They followed my request to work things out peacefully amongst themselves. They were respectful as well, doing all that I hoped that they would.We worked well, stating our needs outright. There were no underhanded remarks or alterior motives. We stuck to our characters and focused on meeting our own goals, while still listening to each other. Although there were times when we questioned each other and things got heated, we came to a consensus in the end.I do think that the process would be improved if certain people were hand picked to portray characters such as Charles. Because Charles was so subdued and pacified, it was less realistic and I as Joseph had little to argue against. I know that other groups had a very different experience, which is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but just something to think about.I prepared for peace by stating from the get go that that was my only goal. As a high ranking official, this request was taken seriously and this tranquil attitude was more or less maintained throughout.There were arguments made over who should be in charge and Ancille wanted Charles to be in charge, even though that did not keep everyone's best interests at heart. Similarly, overall Charles seemed to only care about himself.Kelsey.Malanowski@mynbps.org
4
4/8/2014 15:21:18CharlesI prepared myself very well by reading all of the packets assigned as well as spending time discussing viewpoints with my role group.I think we were successful at meeting the needs of the majority but my character was left extremely screwed over. I did my best to acknowledge the concerns of the villiage but there always seemed to be one character whos needs were not met in any form. At the end it was decided that this would be my character because of his history.We controlled the violence very well no outbreaks occured. There was often yelling but never any physical violence.We spent many hours trying to decide the fate of the land and in this aspect I thought we did negotiate welll. However, i did not think the final outcome benefitted everyone involved.My specific interests were not met in any form. They actually ended up subtracting from what I originally held. I think the group worked well meeting the interests of the majority of the participants. Everyone was pleased with the outcome at the end with the exception of Charles. I think if my group was slightly more open-minded they would have attempted to come up with a different solution. To improve on this process they just need to try other options and be more trustful towards the other parties involved.I didn't notice any peace steps taken. It was pretty much anything goes for the entire time.By taking Charles' influence, land, and rights away from him, the other members of the group have taken a war step by stripping away the rights of a villager. joel.zemach@mynbps.org
5
4/8/2014 15:23:20BernadetteThe Bernadette group did a thorough job of dissecting the character. We all chose one path to follow and half of us strayed from it. I felt like we did a good job on the character analysis front but veered from reality in actual negotiations. For example, some of our strategies were not even mentioned in the packet, but is that a bad thing? I really don't think so. I advocated hard for my wants and needs. In the end, I'm walking away knowing that my needs will be met and that my group as a whole is happy. The other groups just wanted control. To appease Charles, we asked Joseph if he would allow Charles to run for his elected office with a recommendation. The others seemed fine with share-cropping the land and taking an egalitarian approach to its distribution. Also, our 50 year re-negotiation clause allowed the group to feel comfortable with decisions made in the here and now. No one threatened or enacted a policy of violence. Control was maintained through a common goal: economic advancement. When a group agrees on a central tenant, peace is maintained with relative ease. Everyone was open to the thoughts and concerns of others. Even those who were in favor of leaving Bernie in the dust while reaping the benefits of the land she'd leave behind eventually came around to the fact that everyone needed a vested interest in the land for the agricultural process to be successful. The struggle to maintain relevant in the argument never became unmanageable. There was some uproar when the concept of marriage was introduced, but our unusually complacent Charles let it go without much trouble. I just wanted control of the land and stability for Constance's future. The Hutu's values were somewhat undermined due to their antagonistic practices during the genocide. However, they were happy with the outcome and realized that their racial hatred is an unnecessary vestige from a tumultuous past. I feel like negotiations were almost too easy. If everyone involved was more passionate about their disagreements and didn't allow the more progressive policies to pass, the sim would be more realistic. Charles allowed Joseph to maintain control. Charles did introduce one small caveat (his desire to rule over another territory) which could have halted peace. The rest of the group did not see anything wrong with this request however, so peace was conserved. At the onset, everyone was against listening to my needs. I was thought of as inferior and dehumanized. That could be considered a denial of human rights which must be a sub-category of a WARS step. jay.silverstein@mynbps.org
6
4/8/2014 15:27:43FredericI read the whole background packet, my biography, and the essential questions before starting the sim. I wish I paid more attention to the biographies of all the other characters because I think it would have helped me prepare my arguments and such more. I also prepared most of the worksheets by myself so hearing from my other group members the second day helped me more. I definitely knew what Frederic wanted when I started the sim today.I knew Frederic's needs and concerns very well. I think I was well prepared for my own role but less prepared for the other's roles which made my beginning arguments slightly difficult. I didn't know some of the concerns and needs of some of the other roles when I started but by the second half of the day I was fully prepared and it definitely showed.I dont think I acknowledged the others' needs and concerns as well as I could have. I was definitely in it for my own best interest and as much as I was willing to help Bernadette, she was the only one I really had any concern for. Once I went and spoke with the other Frederics I was able to understand what the others wanted more clearly and I sought to assist them more than before.Violence wasn't a huge problem in our group. We started getting loud and rambunctious but I think Joseph (Jordan) did a good job in mediating the situations so that nobody could get too out of hand. I think the one problem is that our group ended with Charles being exiled which is not necessarily a peaceful outcome. I think although we all made the effort to not be overly violent or rambunctious, we still came out with a not-so-peaceful resolution which is not the best thing.I think I engaged in the negotiation a lot better than Ihave in past sims. I think because we had so much time and we had specific characters and background, we had to fight for what we wanted individually. Without the support of other team members, we were each more prepared and more passionate about what we wanted within the larger groups. I think I pushed hard enough and had a good outcome with it.In the beginning, my group was not very interested in meeting my needs. I didn't have anyone on my side and all of them agreed that I was entitled to no land at all. They were not careful or cautious of the fact that my family had been forced out by Hutus and they were not cognizant of the fact that the land was legally in my dead father's name. Nobody wanted to help me until I was willing to share everything I had.Our group did a good job of meeting almost everyone's interests. We kept our values because the only person that we exiled or secluded was the one person who was trying to overthrow the government. As much as one might say that it was wrong for us to exile a person, we all agreed that Charles was not a good person and he had done illegal things that he had never been punished for.I think there is only one thing that would improve the process next time. We could resolve the situation without exiling Charles.Joseph did a good job of mediating the whole meeting. Every time things would get slightly out of hand, Joseph would call everyone down and ask us to speak one by one. This helped because everyone's voices and concerns were heard.Every time we would start forming alliances or agreements, Charles would find a way to negate the ideas. Charles was not interested in coming to an agreement in everyone's best interest if it meant that we would all have an alliance because he knew that some of us were against him as a leader,kristina.talio@mynbps.org
7
4/8/2014 15:34:05AncilleI read all of the materials throughout the week. When you gave us the packets last week I began by reading only the historical background. Then starting on monday I began to read my character packet. I don't think I thought I would become very attached to my character. I definitely listened to everything that each character had to stay, but I definitely wanted to make sure that my needs would not be compromised in the long run. I thought that Bernadette was definitely overstepping her role because she had no rights to the land and was very hostile towards me in the beginning. I definitely don't think that my group became that violent. We definitely got in very heated debates and arguments, but aside from one member throwing her papers around we did not become very physical. I will admit that in the heat of an argument I began to use profanity and racial slurs to get my points across.I was definitely willing to make the best case scenario with my group as long as I got what I had wanted. We went through a list of options and each time I was included in these plans my needs were met. I did not really listen to what other people wanted if it did not seem as though it would conflict with my needs.I worked well with my group but each of us had different situations going on which made it hard for us to pursue the same exact goal. We all gave each other advice and tried to point out new strategies, which was helpful when we returned with all the other people in the village. Our group worked much better together after lunch and we definitely got more into character. We all began by listing what our interests were and how we would be able to best meet our own needs and others. Our entire group wound up cooperating with the exception of
Charles who was placed in jail and given nothing.
We could have definitely remained a bit more civil and given Charles his house, but limited his power. We did not have to become angry and place him directly in jail but in the moment it seemed very logical. Perpetune in my group offered that we all work and harvest the land together so we have the greatest outcome for everyone including our children. We all sought a peaceful negotiation and once a compromise was suggested we all agreed to it. In the end we were even making dinner plans and arrangements for weddings.When Bernadette suggested that my husband raped her and it was my fault it became very heated between us because she had no rights to the land and I clearly placed my husband in jail for his actions. I think this argument was not necessary because I had no control over my husband and this just created a struggle between the two ethnic groups and did not allow us to quickly make a peaceful solution.phoebe.gould@mynbps.org
8
4/8/2014 15:34:13AncilleI feel that I was pretty well prepared, for myself and I feel that I was well prepared for my role, but I could have had a few more arguments or responses ready in terms of my character. I understood the worksheets very well, and I actually did not prepare an opening statement until the very last minuet. However, because of my preparation- I was able to formulate one very quickly. I was able to stay in my role, and I was aware of what I wanted to do- but i feel that I could have done a better job fighting for what I wanted. My role, as Ancille had a main need and concern revolved around her daughter, and rightful ownership. The concern was based on her daughters ultimate long term survival and a promise that she would have the land needed to survive and continue harvesting. I fought for others needs and concerns, with my own benefit in mind. I offered for Frederic to use some of the land to feed his cattle, and for complete control where I will provide Bernadette, and help Perpetune. However, I feel that some people were too involved in their own needs and did not listen to the suggestions that I presented. I think that I acknowledged everyone in a strong way. I pointed out facts about myself, as in Ancille, and what we wanted and what we believed in, and tried to listen to others as they made their own points on this idea. I played to my other groups strengths, and weaknesses using their needs. However, I think some acknowledgement got lost, because not just myself- but everyone in the group was fighting on ONLY the confidential instructions, and because of that I always felt that I was lacking knowledge and there wasn't a place I could look to for clarification. We controlled violence very well, for the most part. Our overall agreement stated that no one involved would cause any violence, or be involved in it to a large extent. However, this took a while to agree upon, and it did not stop threats from being made during the simulation. Charles perspective was that he wanted to get back into a role of power, and back into a position of control, and to do so the goal was to team up with the other Hutu- which ultimately did not happen.
Perpetune, at least in my group had no perspective, because she own in almost any result of the agreement
Ancille wanted to have all the land, and not allow for Frederic to get back on the land for the fear that he will take all of it away without notice, and she feels she cannot trust him.

I provided exact information, and played to the fact that although my husband was a bad person, and was forced into participating in the genocide- I was different and I had nothing against the Tutsi's, and in fact I had my daughter marry one.

In our group we
aaaaahallie.salko@mynbps.org
9
4/8/2014 15:34:14BernadetteI skimmed over the documents yesterday before I met with my group then discussed the information with them. Filling out the worksheet was pretty straightforward as we clearly
agreed on what we wanted. I felt well prepared to negotiate the next day but found it hard to stay in character.
I first sat and listened to everyone else's demands in the village before reading my opening statement/ giving the facts about my character. I knew that my character was not the type to speak up first but rather listen to everyone else. My character was the victim and weak one in the village, do I tried to really listen and stick up for those who could help me, especially Frederic, by restating their rights to land.I was not violent or hostile in actions or words throughout the process and neither was the rest of my group except at the very beginning we spoke over each other.I really tried to enforce the fact that Frederic had the rights to and deserved the land once I knew I wouldn't be able to keep all of my land. It was a fact that he had written proof which couldn't be disputed. I used this along with listing my problems and ties to the land to negotiate.The two Tutsis (me and Frederic) joined together and got married in order to uphold our identities and keep our land together. At first the Hutu/ Tutsi divide was a problem and big part of our arguing. Charles was cruel and did not treat us like people. Later
on we worked towards a common goal to share the land and were peaceful (even Charles seemed fine). But in the end Charles did not agree to sign due to hate towards Tutsis.
We could stay in character the whole time in order to have a more realistic simulation as well as include Charles more as this would be more realistic and likely to happen as well. If we did this, Charles wouldve signed the agreement and not threaten to use violence.Purpitune immidiately stated tht she wanted to maintain peace at all costs, so even from her opening statement she made it known that we all should prepare for peace. Others did not feel this way but we did try to keep
at least one of everyone's requests met.
When we threatened to kick Charles out of the village, he threatened to call the milita and essential start war. From the beginning, threats were made if people's requests and needs were not met.katelyn.malanowski@mynbps.org
10
4/8/2014 15:34:43AncilleI read the packet yesterday afternoon in preparation for the simulation. I wasn't in school so I did the conflict preparation worksheet last night, as well. Meeting with the two other Ancilles today was interesting because we all brought up aspects of the character that the others had not thought of. Certain details that I somewhat skimmed over they proved to be useful and vice versa, allowing us to create a fairly solid approach to the Ancille and what she wanted. In terms of the group role, our group was not 100% committed to the characters as they were told in the scripts, but I believe the liberties we took with them followed the information we were given and synthesized. My overall concern developed into ensuring that my daughter and I, as well as future generations of my family, would have the property that they needed to not only survive but live comfortably without fear of it being taken from them. I think not only me but everyone in my group did a really good job of listening to each other and asking questions, providing justification for each of our claims and willing to compromise on decisions that simply didn't work well in the overall interest of maintaining peace and satisfying everyone (or nearly everyone...sorry Charles). There was really little to no Hutu versus Tutsi difficulties here, except for the fact that Charles was generally disliked and instantly voted out of office when against Joseph because of his participation in the genocide. I think we were all able to come to an agreement that honestly made everyone happy. Sharing the land while still allowing profit to be made and all needs to be provided for quelled any need for hostility or disagreement. We really didn't experience any violence. We were a peaceful group. We did establish repercussions, however, if the agreement was broken for any form of conflict (such as violence or discrimination). These consisted of providing Ancille with a third of the land. We also decided that this group would collect to revisit this agreement every fifty years to adjust the standards in case of any issues.Honestly, I was convinced the entire time that there was a high chance that Bernadette and Frederic were trying to double cross me. Therefore, I posed a great number of hypothetical situations in order to try and crush the possibility of any loopholes. (For the record, they weren't trying to trick me and never pulled anything; they were just genuinely friendly about it). I compromised in a way that many might be surprised by but, in the long run, provided me with more than the Ancilles in some of the other groups, who fought stubbornly, received. We worked together very well to do this. Bernadette and Frederic both promised that my family and I, as well as my future descendants, would be completely provided for forever, as well as given 10% of what we profited, if we gave them the other 90%. We would have access to all the food, cows, and land we needed, and entirely supported, like parents support their children. This works out favorably because, if everything is completely provided for, what would we need the other 90% of our profit for? There isn't any need for the money to buy food if we already have it. We worked together incredibly well, as everybody was satisfied with the decision except for Charles. While we did give him the three cows he asked for, he was not chosen as leader over Joseph but still given the opportunity to hold a position in office. Other than that, each person had all of their needs and desires (land, work, and food) satisfied. We could improve by allowing Charles a bit more of an opportunity to defend himself and his title. The process of deciding quite literally consisted of a twelve second vote, and being that three people favored Joseph and only one favored Charles, Joseph one and that was that. Perhaps giving Charles and Joseph time to campaign themselves would have at least provided Charles with more of a chance, regardless of whether or not it would have changed the outcome.One peace step that I observed was that Bernadette and Frederic decided to marry, which removed any potential conflict over who owned that land or who would be able to use it for what purposes. This impacted us by instantly creating the idea of us all sharing the land, which is what our result ended up being.There really were no wars step. As mentioned above, we were very peaceful. hannah.stevens@mynbps.org
11
4/8/2014 15:35:32CharlesI reviewed and read all materials on Monday night for about a half hour.Once I understood my character's primary goals I went after them. I considered how others would view my actions and chose to do things that would allow my character to have the most control of the situation. I understood and acknowledged the other groups ideas and concerns but ultimately I only chose to follow my own desires. I helped others get what they wanted only when it was beneficial to me.I didn't control violence at all. I did what I wanted, when I wanted. I used violence to establish my control and to get what I wanted. I yelled, I isolated people, I threatened people, I used profanity and racial slurs, I stopped negations, I threw things, I shut off lights, and I slammed doors.I did not think there was any fair outcome that could happen via negations. I understood everyones position and saw that everyone had conflicting interests. After realizing not everyone could get what they wanted, I used negotiations. to only pursue what I wanted. I had absolute control over my group. They all worked for me so that my ideas, interests, and values were upheld. We did not work well as a whole to me the entire groups interests. I dominated negations and excluded both Fredric and Joseph completely. All other parties got what they wanted, but I that was only a side effect of me getting what I wanted. A complete group would have been interesting and possibly better as my group was missing a character. I feel that other than it was really fun and worked well. Maybe we could have all had stronger more engaged characters so that I didn't dominate the room completely. One peace step I observed was Gaby choosing to accept agreements that helped her position little so that as a whole the group moved closer to resolution. One war step that I did was kicking Yasmin and Isabela out of the room and not letting them in until they abided by what I wanted. Also I forced Yasmin to sit in a corner and face the wall as punishment for defying me. oliver.shore@mynbps.org
12
4/8/2014 15:35:44FredericI did not prepare for the simulation extremely well. I read the packet this morning; however, I was able to participate in group discussions and was able to contribute to the contents of the opening statement. I identified with my character, Fredric, though, it was tough due to perpendicular gender identities. In the group session there was little emotion and identity problems. I stayed in character and so did people in my group. Even though we were not too emotionally attached, we all worked out an agreement.Fredric wanted to reclaim his land and have his cattle graze openly on it. Yes, I listened actively and asked clarifying questions about others' needs and concerns and examined the conflict from others' perspectives. Because I did these things, I was open to negotiating and working out a deal with the other characters. All groups were recognized in my group. However, Charles was not taken too seriously. I understood the needs and concerns in a way that the other groups accepted, acknowledged others' needs and got the same in return.My group was peaceful and had no interest in disputes. This was due to our agreements and alliances.I demonstrated understanding of other groups' perspectives by coming to a reasonable agreement in favor of all parties. It worked out so that everyone benefited. My group did very well in regards to working together and meeting my interests and respecting me. They recognized me as legitimate.My group worked extremely well together to meet the interests and needs of all characters involved. We all came to an agreement that benefited everyone. I don't believe that my group could have done better. Negotiation was key. That was the only way that out group could have come to an agreement.I did not see any step leading to war.chandika.basdeo@mynbps.org
13
4/8/2014 15:36:08FredericI read the packet last week and made notes about it. I reread it twice before today's simulation to ensure that I knew who Frederic was and what his motives were. During the simulation, I found, however, that the information in the packet did not cover ever possible reaction that Frederick could have had to a situation that arose. When I met with the Frederick group, we filled out all the worksheets and came to a consensus as to what our main objectives were and who we would be aligning with. I tried my very best to stay in character as much as possible.I actively voiced my concerns, although often to deaf ears. For some odd reason, Bernadette aligned with Charles, even though the background packet alluded that he had been involved with the genocide, which had claimed her husband and by which she suffered rape. Unlike some other people in my group, I tried to follow my character's interests and beliefs to a t. I did not explore others' concerns as much as I should have, often trying to ignore the fact that my cattle had destroyed some of Ancille's crops. However, I did make sure to listen to each of the characters' concerns before proposing any solutions. For my character, the situation seemed very clear, but for others, it may not have been so. I acknowledged some of the other group members' concerns, such as them not having enough land in some of my proposals. I tried to compromise, but they would not have it. My concerns were dismissed as insignificant. One of these such concerns was having a portion of my father's land that had been legally in his possession when my family had fled. The legal title was almost immediately dismissed. I tried my best to see that Bernadette and Ancille's concerns were met by my proposed solutions, but when the rest of the group drafted solutions, my concerns were never really addressed. I had to then vocalize these concerns, often at a louder volume or more frequently, in hopes that they might be heard. I could have tried to control violence in a more effective way. Charles set the tone at the beginning of the meeting that it was going to be him leading it or no one leading it. Much of the violence (both verbal and the few instances of physical) with which I chose to be involved was in response to violence directed towards me. I do not believe that my group addressed the issues of preserving non-violence in the village, as threats of violence against the various ethnic groups were exchanged, as well as comments such as "you should have died during the genocide". I believe that if Joseph had been given a more active role, or if the villagers had decided to band together against Charles, that perhaps a less violent and volatile negotiation process would have been had. I made many sacrifices in the negotiation process, perhaps too many. I understood Bernadette's perspective clearly and tried to help her initially, but she turned on me in favor of aligning with Charles (?!) and Ancille. I could not really understand, nor did I attempt to understand, Charles's perspective. My packet explicitly stated that I was not to trust him, and the fact that he kept denying that he had any involvement int he genocide seemed fishy. I had no idea why he did not want me to have my family's land, nor did he care to clearly explain why he chose to throw out my legal deed to the land. There was no real "fairness" in the negotiation process. There were two options: align with Charles or suffer the consequences. Joseph did not align with Charles and was exiled for the majority of the negotiations. I chose to disagree with Charles and only one of my goals was accomplished, perhaps too late. My cows did get land to graze on, however it was not the best land and some had died. Ancille, Bernadette, and Perpetune seemed to work together well. That group, perhaps out of fear, worked easily with Charles. That group (the majority) worked together, although always leaning towards what Charles wanted, to meet its interests. Joseph and I were often left by the wayside. I tried to intervene several times during the negotiation process to improve my status, but to no avail. My interests were often ignored or dismissed as less important than those of the majority.Joseph was not present for much of the discussion or negotiation process. I tried to get Joseph to speak up and voice his interests, but ultimately, Charles overpowered him. Charles's interests were met, as he remained the supreme leader and got five cows. Bernadette was able to remain on her land (although technically it belonged to Ancille), Ancille was able to increase her amount of land and was compensated for the loss of her crops, and Perpetune got four cows out of the deal. Perhaps, the villagers could decide to overthrow Charles and institute a democracy of sorts, or at least a public forum type system, more opinions could be heard and the solutions would have benefited a larger group of people. Maybe if Joseph had stood firm in his belief that he should be involved, the Charles issue may not have occurred. If more individuals (myself included) were willing to take a step away from their characters and compromise, a better settlement could have been reached. Or, as stated in the debrief, the individuals could have stuck to their characters and not resolved issues, but promised to continue discussions. I do not think that many peace steps were taken in my group. One step that could possibly be counted as a peace step was Bernadette's silence. I also think that I observed Bernadette and Perpetune/Ancille trying to work together to find a solution that would benefit their families the most. There were more war steps taken in my group than could be counted. One of these such steps was when Charles locked Bernadette and I out of the meeting hall, asserting his dominance. A war step that I took that had some influence on the following negotiations (but ultimately failed to impact the end result) was when I tore up the agreement. Joseph tried to initiate a war step when he threatened to call in the Ministry of Justice, but Charles did not take it seriously enough for it to have any impact. isabela.karibjanian@mynbps.org
14
4/8/2014 16:42:05JosephI think that I prepared very well for this simulation. I read through each part of the packet a couple of times so that I was completely clear on the roles of each person. I understood that I was the "good guy" of the village and I was pretty happy about that. I knew that Joseph was a neutral Hutu and that he cared about the Tutsis. Our group was also very good about preparing for the simulation. When we met, we filled out all of the forms and we made sure that we were all on the same page. By the time we started the simulation, both my group members and myself knew what we were going to do during the simulation. I was very good about listening to the needs and concerns of others while also understanding my own needs and concerns. For me, encouraging peaceful negotiation was very important and I did not want violence of any kind. I started the simulation by listening to some opening statements from each villager and throughout the simulation I made sure to stop so that I could listen to any concerns from the villagers. I also asked questions both when I did not understand something or when I wanted to clarify a point that someone had made. I think that it was very important to listen to everyone's needs and concerns before any negotiation began. I made sure to acknowledge every member of the group in a way that I thought was fair and justified. Certain villagers, such as Bernadette, required a little bit more compassion than others and I made sure to take note of this and respond accordingly. My entire group was good about taking time to restate points that people had made. My group understood my goals and knew that I was trying to help all of them.For the most part, my group was not very violent. Especially at the beginning, controlling violence wasn't a problem nearly as much as making sure that people didn't talk over each other was. When the noise level started to escalate, I would make sure to ask the villagers to lower their voices. If there was one villager in particular that was making a lot of noise or challenging other members, I would ask them to stop or to take a minute outside of the room. I think that the most important thing for controlling violence is to not let tensions escalate to a point where people can be violent. Instead, it is important to let one person talk at a time. The most violent part of the negotiation was near the end and it involved a lot of profanity and name calling. At this point, I asked the villagers to calm down and we came to an agreement. I was very satisfied with the way in which we engaged in negotiation. At first, it was difficult to get everyone to agree on things but towards the end we really banded together as a village to come to an agreement. We were very fair and reasonable in our negotiation process which allowed for 5 out of 6 villagers to walk away happy. By the end of the negotiation, the village was definitely much happier than before. The only exception was Charles, whom the village decided to prosecute for his crimes in the genocide. Charles was not cooperative at all and so it was the village's decision to arrest him. In the end, the village decided to share everything and to assist each other with the specific needs that they had. As Joseph, I was almost solely concerned with the group cooperating peacefully and recognizing my power over Charles. Both of these occurred by the end of the simulation so I was very satisfied with the outcome. The group was able to work together without any real violence and recognize me as the governor of Gisenyi. As a group, we did a pretty good job of meeting interests, upholding values and affirming identities. The only exception to this would be Charles. As Joseph, my interests were met and my values were upheld. Also, the whole group recognized and respected my identity. The same can be said for Ancille, Perpetune and Frederic because they were all given land and crops. Frederic was able to keep his cattle. Bernadette was told by almost everyone that the land was not rightfully hers. However, all villagers were respectful of Bernadette and offered to help her by taking care of her daughter and helping her to get food. Charles was voted out of the village and will soon be prosecuted for his crimes in the genocide. His land was given to Joseph. We did not recognize him as the leader of the meeting because Joseph technically has more power. The process and outcome could be best improved next time if the group decided as a whole to be more in character and realistic. While this was the case most of the time, other times we would get a little bit out of character which took away from the simulation overall. One peace step that I observed by all members of my group was negotiation. This obviously had a great impact because the entire simulation was about negotiation land, crops and cattle. There was a very strong effort by almost all members of the group to negotiate peacefully and in a way that allowed for everyone to get something that they wanted. I think that this was incredibly helpful for reaching an agreement. I observed the wars step of threatening others being used by Charles quite often. Especially near the end of the simulation, Charles began to threaten other villagers by saying that he could bring in his troops if we decided to threaten him with jail. This had a very negative effect on Charles because all of the other villagers banded together to fight back. jordan.paurowski@mynbps.org
15
4/8/2014 16:52:28JosephTo prepare i read through the packets provided and as a group we completed the worksheets and came up with our opening statements. Before the simulation I had not decided how far i would take my role but as we started the sim, i think as a group we become more invested in our characters.As Joseph i want the others to divide there land up on there own in a peaceful manner but if this is not possible i will divide the land up myself equally. I also want to keep my power and governor and not let Charles have any say in decisions. Straight away we heard what each other wanted and went quickly into argument knowing we have different needs and concerns. I was a Hutu who helped the tutsi during the genocide so from the start I had neutral feelings toward both groups but as time went on even though i was a hutu i started hating Charles and all Hutu because of all the arguing.Personally I never become violent, I did get into heated arguments. Some members in my group did pull me into the corner and i was locked out of our room. There was also some profanity used but no feelings were hurt. I think i successfully fully engaged myself into the negotiation. Even though whenever i opened my mouth i was shut down and often ignored; I had a good understanding of what was going on. Instead of just following what was on the paper we made up some of our own scenarios (ex. dying of cattle). I tried to make arguments on why having me as leader would allow for a more fair agreement but it failed.I think as a group (Oliver, Gaby, Kaitlyn, Isabela, Yasmin) work very well together. We all took on our roles and understood what are part in the simulation was. We identified with being Hutu or Tutsi and supported our reasons. We had no conflicts. We used our identities of being Hutu or Tutsi against each other to help create conflicts and anger to help make the simulation more real. I think if we had all participants instead of one person playing two roles we may have come to another outcome. My opening statement was to prepare to seek peace but from there we went down the ladder to conflict. Resort to threats: Charles resorted to threatening all people in the group. Frederick was threatened to have no land or not be able to rent land, which would lead her cattle die. yasmin.ruffell-smith@mynbps.org
16
4/8/2014 17:04:05CharlesI read the packets a couple days prior to the simulation, and I felt like I was very well prepared and informed. I was comfortable with my character and felt like I knew exactly what he wanted. My group and I prepared the worksheets and opening statements together and I think we all contributed equally. I feel like I could have developed and stayed in role more if I was in an environment where other people were willing to do the same. I didn't feel like everyone fully understood their characters. I think I could have communicated my needs and concerns more clearly, and asked more clarifications about what the other members needed. In general I understood what each person wanted but I did not vocalize my needs and concerns enough.In the beginning I acknowledged the other group, but since they were all unwilling to listen or meet my needs I no longer acknowledged them or their needs. Being a hateful Hutu adult, I threatened with violence occasionally, and did not want peaceful resolutions. I wanted the Tutsis to stop taking our land and opportunities, which would only happen by removing them and leaving them without anything since they also felt that I deserved to have little to nothing since I participated in the genocide. In the beginning I though I knew what the other people wanted since it was outlined clearly in each of our packets, however as negotiations went on I became more and more confused because it seemed like people abandoned what their character wanted and were just striving for an unrealistic solution. I tried providing sufficient information to negotiate and let them know what i wanted, but everyone was distrustful of Charles since he was a known Hutu extremist. In the end I was not reasonable and decided not to sign any agreements because I did not feel that they met the needs of my character, and I felt that if nobody was taking Charles's needs into consideration he should not sign anything that would grant everyone else exactly what they wanted. The group ignored my needs from the beginning because they antagonized Charles, which is understandable, and refused to meet his needs or listen to what he wanted to say. They also pretty much thought I had no significant values that were important or needed to be upheld since I was a member of the genocide. Every time I tried to offer an idea everyone would counter it by saying the did not trust me or that I was a terrible person. In general the group worked very well and relatively peacefully to try and meet everyone's interests (except for mine of course since I was Charles). There were many times in which members of the group (myself included) failed to stay true to our characters and their values/identities. For example when they were splitting the land everyone was very willing to do so, which is against what the packet stated was in their interests. In order to improve the process and income it is important to be 100% familiar with our own characters as well as the other characters. This will help everyone really engage and participate in a more realistic way. Putting aside selfish requests in order to get a better solution for the majority was the most efficient Peace step. By doing that they are able to acknowledge other people's needs. One frequent war step was threatening as well as refusing to take someone else's needs into consideration. sophia.cumming@mynbps.org
17
4/8/2014 17:34:00BernadetteI invested myself heavily when my group prepared the worksheets and the opening statement; I relied on others' opinions when I bounced back ideas and possible approaches. I spent Monday night reading the confidential packet and jotting down a list of possible approaches. However, it was hard for me to stay in character during the actual simulation and I believe I didn't anticipate other people's responses. I didn't necessarily explore my needs and concerns extensively or concretely. I established my needs and concerns from the packet as guidelines, but added more as the simulation went on. For instance, I created my own need as a mother to ensure my child's safety after my death. It was obvious that I was a very sick woman who probably did not have much longer to live. However, I also tried to take other characters' needs into consideration and asked questions. I asked Frederic about the amount of cattle he had and the amount of land he would need to provide for them at the start of the simulation to see how to divide up the land. I didn't acknowledge the other group very well in that I set off to achieve my own interests. I realized that Ancille/Perpetune wanted my land to support themselves, Frederic wanted my land to graze his cattle, and Charles wanted to legitimize his rule. I didn't ask why they had these interests, but thought about who I could ally myself to help achieve my own interests. I also didn't make it known what I wanted and my options, but rather listened and occasionally agreed or disagreed. I controlled my own violence well since I didn't do anything or say anything that was in any way, shape, or form hostile. Although, I didn't control other people's violence (Oliver's and Isabela's) as I wasn't sure what I should say or do. I do wish that I stepped in when Oliver kept Isabela out of the room and said something or when Oliver put Yasmin in the corner of the room. I engaged in negotiation to the point where I asked questions to gather information and stated my opinions. I tended to have private meetings outside of the meeting room to share information and discuss my options, but stayed generally quiet inside the meeting room. My group met my interests right off the bat, which surprised me. Both Oliver (Charles) and Isabela (Frederic) approached me with two separate deals and promised to support me and my daughter. Ancille promised to give me crops in exchange for my land and offered to let me live in her house and take care of me. As for my identity as a Tutsi, it was brought up a lot when Isabela was denied any share of the land. Oliver always replied that I "know my place as a Tutsi and am obedient," which affirmed the underlying discrimination of a post-genocidal society. I do not think the whole group worked together to meet the interests, uphold the values, and affirm the identities of all the participants at all. Joseph was completely ignored and forcefully exiled from the community without a second thought. Frederic was denied a share of my land and was to give up 10 cattle just to get some grazing land. Rather, Ancille and Charles had their interests fulfilled completely. The group could improve the process and outcome by having an organized form of discussion and a choice of the leader. If I was not locked out of the room, I would have chosen Joseph as the leader of the meeting. Also, I would have clear boundaries on what people could or could not do within a group. For instance, putting Yasmin to the corner was funny, but also hindered discussion. One peace step that was used was forming and negotiating a contract that everyone had to sign on to. It made the grounds for discussion more equal than it used to be and allowed for everyone to have a say. For instance, Isabela got to negotiate over how much cattle she would give to Oliver and the commune in exchange for land. It also allowed for us to question some of what other people were saying. One of the wars step that I observed was resorting to threats. This happened throughout the simulation where Oliver was threatening to not give Isabela any land and just have her cattle die if she did not agree with him. It just resulted in an increase of tension and all parties to be more defensive and goal-orientated. gabriela.rabasa@mynbps.org
18
4/8/2014 19:03:52CharlesI think I was well prepared to the simulation and helped the other Charles in the class. Sometimes it was hard to stay in character because the others were not following the specific instructions in their packages. I think I was able to get what I wanted, the cows and the shared power with Joseph. Ancille was happy with her shared land as well. I asked others what they wanted and tried to give what they wanted.I accepted the other's concerns. I knew they all wanted the land and Fred wanted space to graze the cattle. So, we reached an agreement that would benefit everybody. Frederic was the owner of the land, but would provide for everything that Ancille and Perpetune wanted.I was not violent. Although my character was supposed to be very tyrannical, I was able to reach an agreement without violence.I was engaged in the negotiation. I tried to see things very objectivily so that fair decisions would be made. I heard everyone's point of view and interests and after tried to get to a conjuncture that everybody would agree on. Our group worked very well together. We were able to prioritize our objectives and opinions. Some of us were more successful than others when it came to meeting our interests because of the opponents they were put against with.My group worked very well together. Everybody was able to hear the other's perspective and reach a decision that would be in favor of all. They all understood the concept that one can not have it all and has to make an agreement which will not only beneficial himself, but also the others.I think a way to improve the process is by following the direction given to each character. This way people are going to be able to apply their strategies and plans they made before the game. For example, in our group of Charles we had established our interests, but when we were playing, Bernadette and Frederic decided to get married, something they were not supposed to do. This turned the sim into another direction nobody was expecting.Ancille and Joseph from the beginning of the sim in their opening statement declared that all they wanted was to keep the peace between the hutus and tutsis. Ancille said that she was happy to share the land and hear everyone's opinion. This definitely maintained the peace within the group, because everyone saw how the others were looking for peace as well.When members would say to the other that he did not know what he was talking about or that he/she was not trustful. This caused tension between the members because one was questioning the power of the other. Or when one would question the validity of something because it was from a hutu or tutsi and people would argue against races.marcela.pereira@mynbps.org
19
4/8/2014 20:22:37PerpetuneI feel like I had an easier character as my main interest was to survive and provide for my children. I had my own land and could agree to anyone's positions as long as my kids worked for them. Also, as a Hutu I had Charles' support so I really didn't have a big opponent, as even Frederic was willing to help me in his own terms. In other words, my main goals were the simplest ones if compared to the other roles' and when it came to the end, I could negotiate with anyone who was willing to offer me what I wanted, which was as simple as having ways to survive and provide to my children.I have to be honest by saying that throughout the simulation I did not feel passionate about my character, as it seemed that it was the easiest one and that demotivated me. I was trying to create solutions for the other characters but it didn't seem like they were listening to me as they did not consider my character that important. In the end, I feel like I would've felt more engaged if I've had another character as I caught myself constantly thinking about what I would do if I was another character.I believe that I ackowledge the other group really well as I decided to accept whatever outcome as I found ways to make them beneficial to me as well. The real question was how which one was the most beneficial. At the same time, everything I did depended on other's choices as the main sources were Frederic and Ancille. I felt like all the members of my group were willing to be really peaceful when it came to the discussions and we also decided right away to eliminate Charles (which would be the main source of violence) out of the decision-making process. I do have to admit that just excluding someone out of the discussion may not have been a realistic approach, so I probably wouldn't have done it again. Overall, my group was really pacific and we were all, in the end, willing to decide for something that was beneficial to everyone.I have to say that I did propose some alternative approaches to conflicts in which I wasn't really one of the "main actors", but I also felt like my decisions didn't matter that much. I also recognize that this is the way real life works, and therefore, how a simulation should work so I don't think that the fact that I didn't have one of the most interesting characters is something that should be seen as lack of luck. It happens in real life for an actor's goals to be ignored depending on their influence. I do have to say that in the end, I made my points clear and I was benefited from the deal Ancille and Frederic decided on.I believe that as I had a cleat alliance with Ancille and she was the one who had the biggest land dispute with Frederic, my group wasn't really concerned about meeting my interests. I have to say that as the simulation progressed I realized too that I should privilege a solution to the bigger conflicts as my own could be solved easily, by either making an agreement with Ancille of Frederic. Since my main goal was to provide for my children and survive, there wasn't really a single outcome that would meet my interests so the most "conflicted members of the group" included me (in the way that I expected) into their own decisions and conflict resolutions.My group worked really well together as I believe we all had personalities that provided a "calm" way to the simulation. In other words, I don't believe that any of us was too emerged in a character to not be able to settle for anything other than their own interests (as happened in some groups) so, I believe that as a group we worked really well together and we ended up finding a balance that provided something to every actor (even Charles).I believe that my group worked at a really good process (we were all willing to listen to each other's proposals) and outcomes (everyone got something fair at the end), but I believe that we can improve next time if we try to work at more "realistic" positions, meaning that we do not simply exclude someone from the discussion or take every aspect of it to be peaceful and fair to everyone as that isn't how real life works in most cases.The biggest peace step was when Frederic decided to split in thirds (being that he would have 2) the disputed land. The impact of this decision was that we finally reached an agreement as he was the main source of discussion since he did not wanted to give up any of his land. Once he made a deal with Ancille (who kept her deal with me) and married Bernadette (so that both of them would be entitled to that portion of the land), everyone got what they wanted and we could finally reach an agreement.The biggest war step was used by Charles when he threatened to leave the meeting if he did not control it or if it would be controlled by a Hutu (Joseph). Although I don't believe it had any influence on the development of more conflict (as it should be expected), this position lead everyone in the group to agree that Charles would not have a say in the decisions (or he could be turned in by Frederic) and that he would end up with whatever the rest of the group (especially Joseph) decided to offer him.laura.ebertcarl@mynbps.org
20
4/9/2014 8:11:51FredericI feel that I prepared pretty well for this simulation. I was watching the video on Monday, so I couldn't talk with my group, and on Friday I was at the play, so I didn't get the advantage of a class discussion. However, that said, I did prepare by myself Monday night and with group members before school today. I knew my position, and I knew that I didn't want to let the other villagers know I'd be okay with only owning 1/3 of my land, because then that might be all I would ever get. My group of Frederics came to agreements over strategies and issues pretty seamlessly, and I think we developed the character well. After lunch, my character slipped a little, making it more difficult for me to refuse offers from Hutus.I knew and pretty much achieved what Frederic wanted. I knew the land was rightfully mine (the signed deed). I actually felt a little personally pissed that people would dispute my signed land deed. I knew that I wanted to help Bernadette because I pitied her, but I also knew that helping Ancille and Purpitune wasn't in my agenda (although it ended up happening). I feel like I knew and listened to what everyone else needed and wanted, trying to help people at least compromise. Charles was difficult, because his needs and mine butted heads a lot. Therefore, I didn't try to satisfy all his needs, rather trying just to placate him. I didn't examine the conflict from other perspectives. I thought Frederic would be interested in getting what he wanted, and although he did take pity on the other characters sometimes, he didn't want them to turn out in a better position than he (I) was. I acknowledged the needs of others, even if I was sort of stubborn when it came to my own needs. Compromising was present, although it was limited. I actually felt more in control when my character married Bernadette, because I felt we had more power to say "Hey, we need all this land, and we have a deed and a long history on it". Everyone had agreed on the contract we had collectively set forth, but then Charles decided he didn't want to agree, so we kicked him out. However, he threatened to call the militia, so we gave him back his land and 3 cows as compensation for him not getting violent, which he took but still did not sign to. I think that everyone besides Charles compromised and came up with the best possible solution to meet each other's needs. Violence was pretty well controlled. A marker fight broke out half way through, but was quickly stopped before anything bad happened. Generally, no one wanted to get violent, so it didn't really happen, although there were some death threats. We were pretty good at negotiating, sometimes meeting in small groups to discuss interests and possible alliances. I, for instance, was very liberal with my cow-gifting, willing to give cows to everyone involved for commodities such as land, crops, work, or just a general good feeling. We negotiated by drawing hypothetical boundary lines, then altering them when needed. I held back in mentioning how low I was willing to go, and that went in my favor, because I think Bernadette and I got the best outcome. Charles was just a jerk, whose interests were not compatible with everyone else's, so he was eventually frustrated enough to give up, which might not have been the best course of action.My village worked together pretty well, although coming from a class of peaceful people, we didn't go so deep into the racial or violent avenues of conflict. The characters were a bit fuzzy at times, and sometimes when we tried to get into character by threatening another villager, it would end in laughter because we as students were not violent.As a group, I think we eventually got the hand of the negotiations. At first, it was a bit rough and we didn't know how to approach this heavy subject, but it got easier as we worked through it, and we worked well to meet each other's needs (such as my cows' grazing land) and affirm identities (Charles' jerkishness).I think that we could probably use more serious language to make it more real, and maybe we could not completely relax and be with friends during lunch, because as nice as a break was, it kind of took me out of it.Laura, who was playing Purpitune, was very peaceful and tried hard to calm people down when things got a little rowdy. I don't know if it was Laura or the character, but often if I or another student became angry or *violent*, she would step in. The impact was that she made the mood of the room much less antagonistic and made us all a little more comfortable. Also, she stopped people from getting too violent in a marker fight.The marker fight. It. Was. Intense. Actually, I didn't see it. From what I heard, there was a fight between Joseph and Charles, because Charles believed that he had the right to run the meeting, but Joseph was the appointed leader. Charles tried to usurp the chair of Joseph, but then Joseph got mad, sat on her, and the whiteboard markers came out. Obviously, these weren't machetes, but there was definitely some bad feelings becoming physical, a scary reality during the Rawandan Genocide. It ended quickly (the marker fight) but I think even we were a little surprised that it had happened, and I had a greater appreciation on how quickly people could turn on each other. miranda.vogt@mynbps.org
21
4/9/2014 10:37:44BernadetteI believe that I was well prepared. I knew my character in and out. I also played an integral role in my group's preparations. I contributed ideas as to how Bernadette would act, who our strongest opponent was, and anticipated some responses that other characters may have to our needs. In my opening statement, I explained my needs thoroughly and passionately. I had also prepared about ten questions to ask others to clarify their perspectives. These questions were objective because I didn't want to start a conflict before the negotiations even began. I listened to everyone in the group at one point or another. I acknowledged that somebody made a great point if I agreed with it. If I didn't understand a point someone made I would ask for more details. However, at certain times (especially when my husband or other dead relatives were brought up), I would not listen to my group. I played the role of my character, a traumatized victim, that still had strong emotions for what happened during the genocide.
Additionally, at one point in time, almost the entire group acknowledged the fact that they cared about Bernadette and wanted to care of her and Constance.
Not finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so farNot finished, will edit response later. I wanted to submit the form and save it so that I didn't lose any of my responses so faramber.vanhemel@mynbps.org
22
4/9/2014 11:23:23PerpetuneI began preparing for my role the day before the simulation by reading through all materials twice: one time to gain a basic understanding, and then another after my discussion with my fellow Perpetunes to see if I had missed any information that could be of importance. With my group, I contributed to the writing of the Conflict Preparation and Negotiation Strategy Preparation worksheets, as well as the Opening Statement. We discussed a rough outline of our strategies, goals, and potential relationships with other roles.I made it a point, in the beginning of the simulation, to suggest that we go around a circle and state plainly what exactly each person felt he/she was entitled to and/or what he/she felt was necessary for survival. For example, I plainly stated the need for Ancille to keep the land so that my children could continue farming it in order to receive food. I also attempted to examine the conflict from the perspectives of others, and I found myself at least somewhat successful a majority of the time: with Frederic, Bernadette, and Ancille, I was able to understand why they wanted what they wanted. However, with Charles and Joseph, I found myself struggling to identify with their desire for power.For those characters with whom I was able to personally identify (Frederic, Bernadette, and Ancille), I found myself continuously acknowledging and politely refuting their needs and concerns as I provided counterclaims for my own arguments, thereby not compromising my own interests. I was able to seek acknowledgment from other groups about my own concerns by appealing to their emotions throughout the simulation (for example, I named my children Urukundo and Salama, which mean "love" and "peace" in Rwandan, respectively).The group, as a whole, controlled Charles' violence by deeming him unfit to participate in the discussion process. During our discussion, Bernadette often became irate and threw her papers around, but it never escalated to the point of physical violence. When the situation reached a point of peak intensity, I diffused the situation by proposing what would eventually become our final, peaceful agreement. We even planned for potential violence in the future by including a stipulation in our agreement for a peaceful distribution of the land should we, in the future, end up not enjoying the community-sharing system we proposed.I believe that I engaged pretty well in negotiation. I consistently brought (or at least attempted to bring) new options to the table that I believed would benefit all (or a majority of, if we're counting Charles) participants in some way. However, I found it difficult to reason with participants who insisted on meeting every single one of their goals; compromise, then, was not something that it seemed our group would be able to achieve. For example, when I offered to allow Frederic to keep his cattle on my land in exchange for a couple for myself, he insisted that it was not enough land and that he still needed the entirety of the disputed land. During our initial session, the Perpetunes decided to place a high importance on a peaceful negotiation; we would not, under any circumstances, resort to scare tactics or intimidation to achieve what we wanted. This was keeping in line with the character information that we were given (Perpetune, a Hutu, fled the village in order to avoid partaking in the genocide). The best example of when this value was upheld was during the proposition of my group's eventual peaceful compromise; after emotions had reached a boiling point, I thought it important to state the value of peace and honesty in the negotiation process before proposing my idea.I think that the whole group did well to stay in character and uphold the beliefs of their characters, for the most part. Charles, for example, remained conniving and deceitful, keeping in line with his character's goal of driving the Tutsis from the village. Bernadette, on the other hand, remained chiefly concerned with the welfare of her child, but was unable to sympathize with the welfare of my children; in this way, I think, the distinction between "common" interests as applied to oneself and applied to others differed.I think that more time to discuss tactics and characterization with other members of the same group (i.e. the other Perpetunes, in my case) would help to make participants feel more comfortable with their actions in the game. Often, in the whole group setting, we found ourselves having to refer to our notes in order to estimate our character's response to something, which slowed the progress of the simulation and made it feel much less real.

In the simulation itself, I think that it would have been beneficial to separate everyone's demands into "wants" and "needs" by categorizing them on the board. This would have greatly sped up the process and given us an outcome in a much more peaceful manner. However, this would obviously require the complete honesty of all characters, something I'm unsure if we'd be able to achieve.
All members of our group (except for Charles) engaged in the "prepare to seek peace" step. We began the discussion by agreeing to remain peaceful in our negotiations. Ground rules were set up by which Charles was not allowed to participate in discussion beyond verbal input for fear of violence being brought into the discussion.At one point in the negotiations, we began to deteriorate into the "stop trying to meet each others' needs" step. Tensions were running high and the group was about to split into alliances (Bernadette, Joseph, and Frederic vs Ancille, Perpetune, and Charles). Although short-lived, it was a very stressful experience, and had it gone just a bit further, I doubt we would have been able to reconcile.jocelyn.roth@mynbps.org
23
4/9/2014 13:21:48PerpetuneI was extremely prepared for the Perpetune role and spent a while thinking of different scenarios that could occur when the actual negotiations began. Because I spent a while preparing myself for all these possibilities, taking on the role of Ancille as well as Perpetune was not too bad. I found that I was extremely interested in this simulation and wanted to be well informed for negotiations. When in the group, we managed to quickly go through the worksheets and understand the role together.I think that I expressed my character's needs and concerns fully and completely. Since Charles was in charge, I was able to speak freely and express all wants, needs, and interests. When others were given the opportunity to express their concerns I listened very carefully. This was mostly in order to find possible flaws in their logic or places where their reasoning falls short as this generally denotes lies or lack of knowledge which could work in my favor. For me personally, I always seems to be examining conflicts from other perspectives, as it helps me understand the issues holistically. In regards to the exploration of needs and concerns before moving on to negotiation details, our group sort of missed the mark. The can be illustrated by the fact that negotiations and deals over land and cattle went on even if one party was happy, under the guise of a "majority rules" position. I always made sure to acknowledge other groups and their interests. However, when it comes to recognizing their legitimacy, I was less concerned. When making my own arguments, it works to my benefit to down play the validity of other's concerns, while still acknowledging them. This probably doesn't apply to the other Perpetunes or Ancilles, but I didn't really have to seek acknowledgement from other groups as the only really important group, Charles, pretty much already accepted all of my character's concerns. Later in the simulation, the other char acts were seeking acknowledgement from both Charles and I, since I represented a possible swing vote for leadership, land, and cattle disputes.I was a passive observe to the abusive regime of Charles, mostly because my characters were benefiting from the unrestrained and biased decision making process. When Oliver wasn't blocking doors, I would try and propose solutions that could placate all parties involved.I didn't invent anyway to monitor non-violence beside proposing a commune like solution.However, Isabela devised her Department of Justice bluff in order to keep Charles at bay which I thought was great. I think that I did a good job engaging in negotiations with other groups. As the two people with the most "power" in the room were Charles and my Perpetune/Ancille conglomeration, and Charles wasn't interested in appeasing any Tutsis, I was the prime negotiator that would address everyone's issues. I would say that nearly every time I spoke up, my sentence began with a "what if" or some other sort of hypothetical proposition. I think that this is the best way to explore options. I could trade parts of the land or at least propose partnerships between people that wouldn't out an undue burden on my characters in order to foster working negotiations. I made a point to insist on fairness for those that were agreeing with me and reasonable standards for cooperation.I think that gender issues were very much under covered in our simulation. I'm not saying that they were necessary, but I would have like to explore them a bit more and how each identity views it. We all had our interests met at least in part, though some (Bernadette, Ancille, Perpetune, and Charles) benefited more than others (Fredric and Joseph). Ultimately I think that given the identities and the perceived dichotomy between Hutu and Tutsi, we worked well enough together to find solutions.Refer to last answer.I think that one of the ways that the process could have been improved would have been for Bernadette not to give in to Charles. With two separate groups (Joseph run v. Charles run) working together, I think that we would have had to have compromised much more than we (the Hutu group) actually did.I think that engaging in negotiations was one of the best peace steps we engaged in. Though some of the time negotiations didn't work (like with the leadership issue), the majority of issues were at the very least addressed from all parties. Whenever we engaged in negotiations, I noticed that we compromised a bit more.A wars step that I observed from my group was resorting to threats. It seemed like when reasoning could not convince someone, people would try and blackmail people or say something along the lines of "If you don't do this than...(insert threat here). The impact of these threats would usually be the person receiving the treat ask "Are you threatening me?" and getting a "No, I'm just saying..." as a response. Ultimately threats didn't really get anybody anywhere.katelin.scolaro@mynbps.org
24
4/10/2014 6:53:06BernadetteI believe that I was well prepared. I knew my character in and out. I also played an integral role in my group's preparations. I contributed ideas as to how Bernadette would act, who our strongest opponent was, and anticipated some responses that other characters may have to our needs. In my opening statement, I explained my needs thoroughly and passionately. I had also prepared about ten questions to ask others to clarify their perspectives. These questions were objective because I didn't want to start a conflict before the negotiations even began. I listened to everyone in the group at one point or another. I acknowledged that somebody made a great point if I agreed with it. If I didn't understand a point someone made I would ask for more details. However, at certain times (especially when my husband or other dead relatives were brought up), I would not listen to my group. I played the role of my character, a traumatized victim, that still had strong emotions for what happened during the genocide.
Additionally, at one point in time, almost the entire group acknowledged the fact that they cared about Bernadette and wanted to care of her and Constance.
Joseph tried to keep the peace during the meeting. The only "violence" that occurred was yelling/screaming at each other. However, by the end of it, we had peacefully agreed on a solution and then incorporated that peace into our contract. Our contract didn't include Charles, which eliminates one violent actor. Additionally we agreed to share all the land and work it together. This solution requires cooperation, thus decreasing violence. We also planned for the worse by coming up with a solution if we all start hating each other again. In negotiations I took everyone else's perspectives into account (e.g. I took notes, asked questions etc.) In terms of my interests, I always asked for more than I needed. For example, without my land I needed 5 cows, so I asked for 8. We also prepared for worst case scenarios with "what if" scenarios. By anticipating the worst possible outcome, I think it helped us be more coherent in our solution writing. We saved the establishing decision making issue until the very end. Everyone (but Charles) agreed on making decisions as a village since it worked out so well in this case. However, Joseph would remain governor and have veto power. My interest was surviving, keeping my land, not letting Charles get power, and getting cattle to support myself. After it was clear that my group was not going to let me keep any of my land but still care for Constance and I, I felt hopeless. Then this whole shared land idea came up and I instantly agreed because it was the best outcome of the predicament I was in. There were times when the group thought they should disregard my interests because I am a widowed sickly Tutsi woman who will die tomorrow. I had to fight to convince them that I am strong and wouldn't leave Constance alone by dying. I think the group met the interests/values of everyone except Charles. Even after they agreed that the land did not belong to Bernadette, they still offered to care for me. One of my goals was survival and at that point (without my land) I was at the mercy of the village. They still managed to meet my interests. Perpetune and Ancille's children were taken are of, Joseph remained in power, and Friedrich had someplace to put his cattle and land to plant on. I think the process could be improved if we met outside in small groups more often. Perpetune, Ancille, and I met away from the group and actually accomplished a lot. Joseph needed to be more forceful. The group voted to kick Charles out of the room and he didn't budge. So we then voted to make him sit silent for 20 minutes, but Joseph poorly enforced that. We should have just left him in the room and met without him.At the highest intensity level, Perpetune got up, said "hold on," and actually started writing out a solution. We all fell silent to watch and pay attention. By having a physical look at the solution we were able to come to an agreement because it was in writing. Perpetune was like the unofficial peacekeeper. At another intense moment, she got up and walked me out of the room to talk. The peace steps being used were controlling violence and engage in negotiation. At one point, Charles stopped trying to meet anyone's needs except for his own. We didn't want to make alliances or negotiate any further. He just wanted power (and blatantly admitted it)! When he knew that we were all going to vote against him, he resorting to threatening Joseph and the entire group.amber.vanhemel@mynbps.org
25
4/10/2014 10:44:05Ancilledone in previousdone in previousdone in previousdone in previousdone in previouswe worked well together. I think the Charles of our group should've fought more than they did. Not to make criticism of them, but I just went into the sim thinking that the fighting would revolve around them. However, instead there wasn't much fight from Charles. Additionally, it was weird because Bernadette and Frederic decided to get married, and this was not something that I was prepared for. However, not being prepared is also exciting because that could happen in real life. I think that the whole group worked well together. However, I believe that some were more into the activity, or into their role than others were. However, we were able to uphold the majority of the values, despite revealing some of our confidential information accidentally as we went along. I think that our group could have discussed the negotiation to a further extent, and could have fought for more- or for a longer time. To some extent, I feel that the result was reached too simply, and although I personal had a verbal fight with people in the first session, there weren't many of them in comparison to other groups. I really want to do another full day sim because in this one, I feel that I wasn't used to having that much time, which may have caused the relatively quick agreement. One peace step that I observed was the fact that at the end, although Charles was a terrible man. Originally, we had made his land a communal area for everyone else. However, realizing that he was the oldest and probably the least well off. He was given back his land, along with 3 cattle. This was good because it allowed a non violence agreement to be formed. One war step that I observed was seeing people use the weaknesses against each other, and turn against them. There were also threats that were made, such as one to kill the Tutsi people and call in the militia. The impact was that those who were being threatened became more defensive, and I found that they made themselves less agreeable to negotiate or to give more land. hallie.salko@mynbps.org
26
4/13/2014 16:44:50JosephI think I prepared myself quite well by reading the document and completing the charts and questions. Having an opening statement was really useful because if we didn't know who would start the meeting, we were never really going to agree on how to begin. I think that as we proceeded with roleplaying, I was even more prepared.My role was mostly to control the meeting, and my favorable option was to let the villagers decide. However, the villagers were not that cooperate with each other so I told Frederic and Annecille that they should have a separate meeting to possibly come up with an agreement. I did listen actively to others while they were discussing and tried understanding why they were making certain arguments or wanted certain agreements. I acknowledged everyone just about the same except for Charles. I tried to continue to override him and simply ignore what he was saying. I wasn't really violent but I did sit on top of Charles because he took my seat. I think I engaged more in the negotiation than I should of. I tried letting the villagers come to an agreement but having a mediator that helped them finalize their agreements was (I consider) quite helpful.We all worked together to come to an agreement we all liked, but Charles did not sign the agreement. We sort of left him out and then decided to be nice and give him 3 cows, but he still was not agreeing with the contract. We all pretty much attained what we wanted by discussing how we would split everything up; it just took longer than it should of because Annecille and Frederic would not come to an agreement. I think we should of all communicated more and tried to include Charles into the discussion that way he was not against us. I would consider us giving Charles 3 cows as a peace step because that allowed us to show him that we are not against him and that we do not want war. One war step was that Charles threatened to kill the Tutsis, and that had a great impact cause it allowed him to get what he wanted which was some say in the decision-making. loredana.petrucci@mynbps.org
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
Form Responses