Bonus cards for exercises?

[Ainali]

In the early version we had some more cards that I later removed since they are not actually used in any of thee scenarios. However, during the workshop we did today when we used the cards more are as a tool for discussion rather than actually playing the game there were requests for several cards that made sense in the moment. Would it make sense for the next batch to add a couple of cards for that purpose? (Another advantage would be that the box would fill up and have a better structural integrity.)

[Ainali]

Possible extra cards could be, from the Tuesday workshop:

• contract(s)
• Roadmap, perhaps both technical and feature/product
• implementation partner/developer
• demo-version

From Thursday:

• marketing page

[Ainali]

It might make sense to have one more citizen, to represent there being different ones in the two public organizations, but I'm not sure. We could also possibly think of renaming them to Residents.

[bvhme]

+1 for renaming them to residents as citizens can be overly political in places where many residents are not.

…

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 13:11, Jan Ainali ***@***.***> wrote: It might make sense to have one more citizen, to represent there being different ones in the two public organizations, but I'm not sure. We could also possibly think of renaming them to Residents. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/publiccodenet/governance-game/issues/13?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAOUFPPAMYSBQ3EKWZOSA6LREUDGNA5CNFSM4KJUGAX2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEM3XFIY#issuecomment-590836387>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOUFPIVRI3VOQTT3KTBNW3REUDGNANCNFSM4KJUGAXQ> .

-- Boris van Hoytema, chief executive and secretary Foundation for Public Code <https://publiccode.net> boris@publiccode.net | +31 20 2 444 555 | @bvhme <https://twitter.com/bvhme>