Interrogator: Second Life
Overview | Instructional Objective | Learners | Context of Use | Motivation
Avatars & Roles | Objects & Locations | Game Goal | Play by Play | References
Interrogation: Second Life is a simulation designed to teach and provide practice for military personnel located in areas where they must assume an interrogator role due to lack of subject matter experts, remote location, or data collection time-sensitivity. The simulation pairs Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on interrogation, culture, and physical environments, with military personnel in a virtual environment designed to simulate critical success factors in interrogation scenarios. Military personnel interact with SMEs who can play advisory roles, interrogation subject roles, and/or participant roles. The virtual nature of the simulation allows the environment, including the roles the SMEs assume, to be modified to support nearly endless scenarios, allowing a level and depth of practice (e.g. remote practice over a long period of time) that would otherwise not be possible or practical during deployment.
Background: Interrogation
Over the course of the Iraq war, military personnel have been put into interrogation scenarios without on-the-ground on-demand training. As a result, these personnel have had to rely on assumptions and popular depictions of interrogation techniques that, upon professional inspection, have little to no efficacy.
Interrogation is a methodology employed during the interview of a person, referred to as a "source", to obtain information that the source would not otherwise willingly disclose. A typical purpose is not necessarily to force a confession, but rather to develop, playing on the source's character, sufficient rapport as to prompt the source to disclose information valuable to the interrogator. A well-conducted interrogation will not usually involve torture, which in practice is widely acknowledged to be ineffective at producing true, accurate, correct and reliable information.
Background: Second Life as a MUVE for Interrogation Practice
The Second Life environment provides significant advantages for on-the-ground on-demand training for military personnel including:
The ability to access the environment anywhere: Military personnel are quite literally on every continent on earth as well as in every major body of water. This dispersal makes it difficult to deliver classroom based training because the class cohort is rarely in the same place. This is further complicated by the fact that the personnel who would receive this training may be too valuable in their current positions to leave their posts for training. A distance solution is required for training a dispersed workforce. Further, this type of access allows SMEs to interact and provide feedback in real-time with military personnel, bridging the gap between those who have the knowledge and those who need the knowledge.
The ability for multiple users to co-exist in the environment: Because military personnel are moved and assigned as needed, they must be capable of interacting with different people, and in the case of an interrogation, of assuming pre-defined roles. The Second Life environment allow personnel to interact with people they work with now, as well as with people they may work with in the future.
The ability for users to interact with the environment: During the simulation, participants will interact with the environment, similar to the way they will interact in interrogation scenarios. They will be some obvious differences – for example, private chat will be via text instead of voice – however the interaction with the environment can be modeled to reflect the interrogation environment military personnel will or are encountering in the field.
The ability for users to communicate via voice, public chatting, and private chatting: While the majority of communication will be via voice, participants will also be able to communicate privately using chat. While an artifact of the Second Life environment, this is a useful method of simulating the type of communication required using body language that would be used during a real interrogation among interrogators.
The ability of the environment to maintain and save transcripts of chats and to timestamp targeted scripts (e.g. gestures): Part of the simulation is the feedback that participants receive not only from the SMEs, but also from the Second Life system. This includes transcripts with timestamps that can be related to the audio (and possibly video) recording of the session.
The overall objective of the simulation environment and game sequences is to reinforce effective and legal interrogation methods. To support this objective, participants will generally learn and practice:
- Effective questioning patterns in an interrogation session
- Identification and use of cultural cues in an interrogation session
- Interpretation and use of environmental cues
- Response truthfulness/reliability evaluation methods
- Subject motivation evaluation
Participants will also learn legal and non-legal practices during interrogation, their documented efficacy rates, and guidelines for handling interrogation methods of questionable legality.
On a more granular level, the following factors will influence the instructional objective of a particular session or set of sessions:
- The environment is designed for long-term continuous practice by participants of varying skill levels.
- The game play scenarios will vary widely depending on the interaction between the SMEs and the participants.
- The scenarios will vary widely depending on the specific in-the-field issues that motivate the training.
Because of these factors, participants may not learn and/or practice all components of the instructional objective during one session of game play, or even over multiple sessions of game play.
Learners are on-the-ground military personnel who need introductory or supplementary training in interrogation techniques. These personnel are not interrogation experts who have, for varying reasons, been required to assume the role of an interrogator. Example learners could include:
- Translators
- Military Police
- Ground soldiers patrolling civilian areas
This simulation is designed for on-the-ground / on-demand training situations where more traditional forms of training may not be possible or practical. The environment is divided into three zones which reflect a specific use context and support for the overall instructional goal.
Zone 1 is the initial entry point for participants. This is a classroom setting consisting of a traditional lecture environment as well as automated information kiosks on topics including:
- Effective questioning patterns in an interrogation session
- Interpretation and use of environmental cues
- Response truthfulness/reliability evaluation methods
- Subject motivation evaluation
- Identification and use of cultural cues in an interrogation session
Zone 2 is the game area for participants. This environment is highly variable and is focused on creating accurate simulations for participants and evaluating their performance. For example, an environment may be created where:
- A detainee has been brought into a room for questioning.
- Soldiers must identify, approach, and question a specific individual within an open-air market setting.
- In the aftermath of an explosion, on-the-ground personnel must rapidly question on-lookers and create an accurate account of what happened prior to the event.
Zone 3 is a private feedback area for participants where their performance in Zone 2 can be reviewed with them by the participating SMEs. This is a small classroom setting where pictures, chats, and voice recordings of the game can be reviewed. For more advanced scenarios, Zone 3 may also include a replica of Zone 2, allowing the SMEs to take the participants on tour of the game they just completed and providing for a more in-depth review of the participants performance.
The effective use of this simulation requires multiple uses in varying contexts. This is a key factor in the instructional efficacy of the simulation and game, as well as in the usability of the Second Life system. As an interactive system, Second Life requires more than casual practice to become adept at controlling an avatar and communicating with others. Because of this, Interrogator: Second Life, provides an initial environment (Zone 1) where users can practice Second Life skills at their own pace, within the context of learning about the subject matter they will practice in Zone 2.
The other issue addressed by Zone 1 is the fact that participants are likely to come into the simulation with varying levels of knowledge and real-world practice. The classroom teaching area is used for knowledge leveling prior to participants entry into the gaming environment (Zone 2) and can be supplemented by the learning kiosks spread throughout Zone 1.
Facilitators and SMEs
Facilitators and SMEs will require a specialized area for discussion. While this could be in Second Life, it seems more flexible and provides more distinct interaction to use a tool like Adobe Connect or iChat Theater for conversations among SMEs and facilitators.
With the accurate and timely communication and practice of critical success factors in effective, legal, and safe interrogations, the motivation of participants to use and become expert in the system will at minimum include:
- On the surface level, the Second Life environment is visually and interactively fascinating. It's game-like environment is attractive to many users, and for those who might be intimidated by it, acquiring basic skills for navigation and communication are relatively easy. As participants move past their interest in the Second Life system, the simulation and game furthers that interest with relevant interactive training whose variety demands constant attention.
- The simulation directly relates to critical success factors for the performance of the participants' jobs. Because these jobs are often dangerous, training that provides increased skill level can both enhance the participants' abilities to manage risk as well as minimize the level of risk. The ability to have increased control through risk-management in a potentially dangerous situation increases confidence in the performance of the job. Satisfaction both with the simulation and game will occur as participants enhance relevant skills and will be reinforced by successful on-the-job use of the skills.
Insiders: Players do not have to know each other in real-life to play, and this fact is useful because it allows SMEs to assume the role of a fellow player. This can allow the player to create circumstances that might not occur naturally with regular players.
Players: Players enter the simulation as themselves. Appropriate clothing is provided according to the scenario (e.g. military fatigues, plain clothes, etc.) Depending on the scenario, players will receive scripted gestures.
Teachers: During classroom instruction, SMEs and/or Facilitators will act as one of a standard set of teachers. Teachers in this simulation are from a standard set of avatars developed to be instantly identifiable to players.
Detainee: During Zone 2 game play, players will encounter someone they must detain (even if only momentarily) for questioning. This may be a SME, or another player who is learning what it's like to be on the other side of the situation.
The simulation and game consists of three zones, each with different components.
- Zone 1 is the initial entry point for participants. This is a classroom setting consisting of a traditional lecture environment as well as automated information kiosks.
- Zone 2 is the game area for participants. This environment is highly variable and is focused on creating accurate simulations for participants and evaluating their performance.
- Zone 3 is a private feedback area for participants where their performance in Zone 2 can be reviewed with them by the participating SMEs. This is a small classroom setting where pictures, chats, and voice recordings of the game can be reviewed. For more advanced scenarios, Zone 3 may also include a replica of Zone 2, allowing the SMEs to take the participants on tour of the game they just completed and providing for a more in-depth review of the participants performance.
The overall simulation and game goal is to increase proficiency in interrogation techniques. The specific goal of a Zone 2 scenario will vary and is explained during a pre-game briefing in the classroom area of Zone 1. For example, the objective may be to question a detainee about their affiliations with a specific organization and determine if additional questioning is warranted. Typically the questioning must be conducted:
- Efficiently – the players have a limited amount of time to conduct the questioning.
- Effectively – the players must acquire the information or make a determination that there is no information to be acquired.
- Legally – the players must conduct the interrogation in a legally sound manner
- Safely – the players must be aware of their environment while conducting the interrogation to react appropriately to environmental changes.
Ultimately, the determination of success is done through evaluation by participating SMEs and is reported during the feedback session in Zone 3.
Entering the simulation
To begin, players teleport to an entry point in Zone 1. At this point, a player has two choices. If the player is scheduled to run through a game, the player proceeds to the classroom area. If no game is scheduled, the player can use any available interactive kiosk to get information on various interrogation skills or second life skills.
Pre-game briefing
A player that is scheduled to run through a game will receive a pre-game briefing in the classroom area from the game facilitator consisting of:
- The game's objective
- The game's physical environment (for example, a map may be presented with targets)
- Relevant points about the game including culture of the inhabitants, languages spoken, perception of military personnel, etc.
- Duration of the game
- Interrogation methods to be used and corresponding gestures (if applicable)
- Team makeup if more than one player
- Team leader if more than one player
- The teleport location to enter the game
- The teleport location to exit the game
Once the briefing is over, the player(s) will determine roles for the game, an action plan, and the player or team lead will report this information to the game facilitator. This will be part of the criteria that players are evaluated against.
Game Entry
When ready, players will teleport to the game entry location. Players may teleport to a prison, an open market place, etc.
Game Play
Players have a limited period of time to execute their orders and achieve the games objectives.
Game Termination
The game is done when:
- Time runs out and the simulation ends. Players are made immediately aware of the end of the simulation when everything around them begins to disappear by being placed back into inventory.
- The player(s) believes the objectives have been achieved and communicates to the team to teleport to the exit location.
- The facilitator ends the game by terminating the simulation and signaling the player(s) to teleport to the exit location.
Feedback and game play analysis
Players assemble at the exit location to receive feedback in both a classroom setting and, potentially, in a replica of the environment they played in. Chats, pictures taken of specific interactions, audio recordings, and notes taken by SMEs are reviewed and additional training and game-play is scheduled.
Books & Journals
- Curran, S. (2004). Game plan: great designs that changed the face of computer gaming. Switzerland: RotoVision SA.
- Raessens, J. & Goldstein, J. (2005). Handbook of computer game studies. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
- Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: game design fundamentals. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
- Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2006). The Game design reader: a rules of play anthology. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
- Thompson, J., Berbank-Green, B., & Cusworth, N. (2007). Game design course: principles, practice, and techniques - the ultimate guide for the aspiring game designer. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- v3image (2007). A Beginner's Guide to Second Life. Las Vegas, Nevada: ArcheBooks Publishing Inc.
Electronic
- Bowden, M. (2003). The Dark Art of Interrogation. www.theAtlantic.com
- Brashears, A., Meadows, A., Ondrejka, C., Soo, D., & Kjer, D. (2007). Linden Scripting Language Guide. San Francisco: Linden Lab.
- Ross, B. & Esposito, R. (2005). CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described. abcnews.go.com.
- (November 5, 2007). Interrogation. www.wikipedia.org.
- (November 5, 2007). Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc. www.w-z.com.
- Priest, D. & Stephens, J. (May 11, 2004). Secret World of U.S. Interrogation. www.washingtonpost.com.
- Layton, J. (November 5, 2007). How Police Interrogation Works. www.howstuffworks.com.
- (November 5, 2007). John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. www.reid.com.