The Public Discourse on EMF

Understanding the mechanics behind science communication through play

Design Philosophy

Core Design Principles

No Win Condition

You can't satisfy all stakeholders simultaneously - a deliberate design choice

Stakeholder Balance

Choose who to cater to: public, science, or authorities

Moral Code

All answers are scientifically correct - only detail level varies

Trust Metrics

Gamification that mirrors real-world complexity

The Challenge

An Unwinnable Game

What do you have to do in order to “win” this game? You can’t. There is no way to make all your stakeholders (public, science, authorities) happy at the same time. It is upon you to decide who you want to cater to the most – and whose criticism you may take. This reflects on the situation of science communicators in the real world. They want to stay true to scientific facts – having some knowledge and some uncertainty at the same time – while the public prefers answers without any uncertainty.

Scientific Integrity

The Truth Behind Answers

  • All answers within the game are correct (minus the one in the beginning where your boss scolds you for being incorrect).
  • You just decide upon the amount of detail you want to share.
  • science communicators ideally follow a moral code that requires them to give no wrong information. Trust in science relies on truthfulness.

Reality Check

Real World Reflection

How much does the game reflect the real world when it comes to science communication on EMF? We tried to make it as close as possible, while at the same time making the game informative and fun to play.
The trust metric is a game design choice – optimization mechanics make games fun to play. The real world is much more complex.
Shopping Basket