Table 1
Pool of Potential Participants for Arctic Council Scenarios.
| 8 Arctic Council Member states | Observer states | Indigenous Permanent Participant Organizations |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
[i] * Military academies already linked through ISMS.
Table 2
Use of Slack channels during simulation.
| Channel | Status | To* | From | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #general | open | 19 | 14 | This was intended to be the administration channel, but quickly became the main channel for conduct of the simulation as teams reported on it in character. |
| #arctic-simulation | open | 22 | 5 | This was intended to be the simulation channel, but became secondary when reports were posted on #general |
| #random | open | 6 | 7 | This is an automatic feature of Slack, “A place for non-work-related flimflam, faffing, hodge-podge or jibber-jabber you’d prefer to keep out of more focused work-related channels.” (Slack) |
| #supportteam | limited | 8 | 1 | This provided scope for advisors to discuss the simulation in progress, without visibility to the players |
| #USteam | limited | 11 | 1 | The US team was least active, but scenarios were not ideal for their engagement, and the students used their own channels to coordinate |
| #canadianteam | limited | 16 | 6 | The Canadian team, with no on-site faculty advisor, was surprisingly active, meeting deadlines and contributing good quality materials. |
| #norwegianteam | limited | 6 | 12 | The Norwegian team was most active on its own channel, using it to communicate both internally, and with sim coordinators. Products were professional and thoughtful. |
[i] * Inputs or events from simulation organizers.