The greatest attention in Fuller’s game is to physical resources and energy. Fuller was an engineer and technologist and a self-described design-science revolutionary. An optimist and big thinker, his position was that “spaceship earth” had adequate resources for life support for everyone on the planet, if only we would think big and give up the nation-state as an outmoded form of governance. His book Critical Path includes a description of the World Game; there he briefly recognizes human fear of the unfamiliar (Fuller) as a problem for his projected future. Like many utopians, Fuller hungered for a totalizing conception of the good, which if enacted could well be oppressive. We are now critical of twentieth-century total izing schemes, even if framed in the most benign and well-meaning way.
World Game, as developed by Fuller, is a game in support of decisions to enham e human life on this planet in a technical sense. Technical decisions can be accept ed or overturned based on rationality, logic, or scientific evidence. What Fullet avoided was the human component of game play that is essential and complex.
In contrast but also at a large scale, the Model United Nations is an interactive role-playing game in operation worldwide at universities, high schools, and online. In this game, students represent a particular country after absorbing the country brief. They learn the procedure within the security council, develop skill in resolution writing, caucusing, and consensus building. Based on human interaction and persuasion, issues are argued, coalitions are formed, and decisions are made within the simulated structure of the United Nations. The game is very fluid and dependent on the knowledge and communication skills of the players.
World Game and the Model United Nations are at opposite ends of the gaming spectrum. The former is based on physical-technical information and on a top- down approach to decision making, while the latter focuses on human communication and interaction and is based on a bottom-up approach to decision making through negotiation and consensus building.

Sometimes, fascinatingly, things hover ambiguously between communication and non-communication, as in the case of the wink/twitch (Sless and Shrensky). Imagine sitting in a train and the man opposite you closes and opens one eye quickly while looking straight at you. Is he winking at you or twitching? By analyzing this example carefully, we have been able to show the subtle nature of the boundary between communication and non-communication. The difference between treating the phenomenon as communication or as non-communication turns out not to be a characteristic of the phenomenon itself but rather a characteristic of our description of the phenomenon. Put another way, it is what we—experiencing the phenomenon—bring to its apprehension: the beholder’s share again.
In the case of communication, when we read something as a text, we apply a quite specific schema that implies a notion of an author. We do not need a clear idea of who the author may be, what their purpose or intention was, or the nature of the message they wanted to present. If we believe something to be the product of an author then we treat it in a distinctive way. We try to make sense of it in a special way, quite different from the way we would try to make sense of it if we regarded it as a natural phenomenon. Treating something as communication leads us to ask questions about intention and semiotic systems. Treating something as a natural phenomenon leads us to ask questions about causes and effects, a quite different type of inquiry leading to quite different descriptions and explanations.
Equally, as the author of texts (using the term “author” in a broad generic way), we imply a notion of a reader. Again, this notion can be quite vague, and often is, but the presence of this implied or inferred reader is a defining characteristic of communication from the author’s point of view. There is thus a symmetry between the author and reader positions. But, importantly, these are different positions in the communication landscape, and the presence of the text both joins and separates them.

Communication was not a theorized space until after World War II, it was i something we did. Seminal model of communication and the model of feedback dealt with the technical transmission space for communication. From the beginning of communication theory, attention focused on technical aspects and broadcast models in which the recipient of the communication was presumed to be passive. All that was necessary was to use understandable codes (language, symbols, images) with which the recipient was familiar. Since those early days, many communication models have been developed that deal with various perspectives on communication, including discourse models that seek to establish rapport; gratification models that attempt to sustain interest; innovation models that promote behavior change; and context models that seek to recognize and plan for the specific conditions in which a communication occurs. Wit ii these models the varieties of ways in which communication was received and interpreted came to the foreground, but the variables that influence any particular person’s interpretation remain daunting and undiscovered in their totality.