Document Type
Article
Abstract
[First paragraph]
In the war game Diplomacy, players win by gaining control of Europe. In order to win, however, players must successfully negotiate with other players, make alliances with them, and sometimes gain the support of their ally's military resources, their armies or fleets. In the rules of the game, Diplomacy is described as
- a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept, and promises broken. In order to survive, a player needs help from others. In order to win the game, a player must eventually stand alone. Knowing whom to trust, when to trust them, what to promise, and when to promise it is the heart of the game. Remember, you are a diplomat first, a commander second. (3)
The type of negotiation that occurs in Diplomacy is one in which, despite the alliances that have been made, the negotiator's purpose is ultimately to win. However, negotiation as rhetorical argument, which is similar to what rhetorical scholars call Rogerian argument, theoretically has a different purpose: to help opponents understand each other, to reduce conflict, and perhaps even to help parties reach consensus or resolve a problem so that everyone is mutually satisfied. This is a much different type of negotiation than what might occur between a buyer and seller or between players in a game like Diplomacy. Rogerian argument is a type of negotiation that is like problem-solving, whereas, the negotiation that occurs between players in Diplomacy, or buyers and sellers, is more contentious and linked to traditional argumentative purposes and persuasion.
Repository Citation
Thorne, Stacy F.. "Rogerian Rhetoric as Negotiation: Does Its Dependence on Game Theory Pose Ethical Problems?." Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture vol. 3, no. 1, 2003, pp. 1–11. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/reconstruction/vol3/iss1/5
Included in
Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Game Design Commons, Psychology Commons, Rhetoric Commons