McGonigal explains that we not only must have rules, feedback, and goals. The game must also have voluntary participation. While the assignment itself was mandatory for the class, all members agreed to methods of gameplay. We also went above and beyond in the assignment, analogous to the “wholehearted participation” McGonigal discusses in her book as a metric for voluntary gameplay. The flexibility of our rules and goals gave people gameplay liberty. This asynchronous structure allowed members to use discretion to tackle tasks in manageable ways. However, we nevertheless maintained the organization necessary for large group projects.

Initially, in the creation of this game, we assigned each member a specific role which was useful in regulating gameplay.  After the game had been organized, we started with the simple tasks of updating Taskstreams to plan theses for our individual final learning arguments. Once we had refreshed a few of our works, we shared and reviewed the work of our peers before we moved into the heavy editing of two of our chosen crucial works and final argument. To be sure we were on track to complete this group assignment, we situated oceans of collaboration between these tasks which served as points for the group to come together to outline and complete the final group report.  At this point, a majority of the group has finished those tasks and are moving on to the finalization of their portfolio, argument, and then the completion of this essay.  

As a testament to the collaborative dynamism of our team, every vote was unanimous. We all, as a group, contributed to making this game useful for our individual skill improvement and our Taskstream products. Each task had value. Even our secret missions, which at first seemed to be a waste of time, showed to be helpful to increasing the quality of our work. Multiple perspectives allowing for teammates to collaborate to find strengths and weaknesses in each other's work.  While creating a collaborative argument, for the most part, was more enjoyable than creating an individual argument, timely participation was an issue in our group.  Everyone did complete their tasks in time, and it was made sure that no teammates were left behind, however, the logistics of meeting in person were, at times, difficult.

           Following the “kairos” commonplace that there is “a time for everything,” our group chronological organized tasks and subtasks to encourage prompt success, increase organization, and to further incentivize collaboration. The pathos timing of our game was also appropriate, as we all had tired of routine academic work. It provided us an opportunity to improve our creativity, which may have been restricted in previous assignments.