IBM has posted an online simulation game called CityOne, where you can try and make a city as disgusting and dirty…ahem, I mean as clean and efficient as possible:

Think you know what it takes to make the energy systems that serve a city more efficient? Given the opportunity, could you make the city’s water cleaner and more plentiful, its banks more robust and customer-centric and its retail stores more innovative?

Changes you make affect sensors in the game. You are meant to “evolve” four industries: retail, banking, energy and water.

You have to sign in and agree to store information on IBM servers before you can play. I could not help but notice the incongruity here. Do you see a “submit” button?

Does this mean I am not bound by the terms because I clicked continue instead? The game has not even started and I have found a decision flaw.

This reminds me of games I used to play to solve the Middle East conflict. Although it is fun to choose from a limited set of options, after a while it becomes clear that someone has an agenda and you are just learning how to follow along.

The start of the IBM game, for example, gives you three water options based only on technology (that presumably that IBM sells): desalination, smart water meters, and separate water systems. I could not find the option for deregulation, issuing fines, or invading a neighboring state and seizing their water supplies. The “water consultants” in other words give the sort of advice you might expect if IBM placed a consultant in your city.

There is no city jester and no military/security consultant to offset the industry consultants who just seem to want to spend money on IBM.

Don’t ask why a CEO is said to be in charge of a city, instead of an elected official, let alone why this CEO only has four consultants and they are all working on industry. Just play along now.