The Luna Posse

The Luna Posse is for anyone curious about how public institutions make decisions. It will appeal to people who work in or with government, study law or public policy, advocate for public participation and accountability, or want to understand how freedom of information systems work in practice. Participants encounter the process from different perspectives: an applicant seeking information, an officer processing a request, a lawyer advising on exemptions, and bureaucrats who are focused on delivering public value. Each has a lens through which to view the system.

The scenario starts by taking participants inside a records request and review process, where the principles in the FOI legislation meet administrative pressures, competing interests and institutional habits. From there, the ripple effects through the wider system are explored. You’ll have an opportunity to test arguments, make judgement calls and see how a decision can look different from each side of the institutional boundary lines. Along the way, you can explore where the system delivers meaningful transparency, where other interests compete with disclosure, and whether following the process is enough to achieve its purpose.

The scenes offer a chance to see how people engage with an issue in practice. You may notice how someone listens to a concern, responds to a counterargument, explains a judgement call or adapts when their position is challenged. Do members of your group suspend judgement and explore foundations with curiosity, jump-ahead on the back of assumptions, or use a more aggressive leverage point? Are questions considerate, or self-serving? These interactions can reveal the difference between knowing the rules and applying them in the context of the broader dynamics. How people listen, question and respond to disagreement can be as revealing as the positions they take. They also offer an opportunity to reflect on your own approach: what you notice, how you respond and whether you make room for perspectives beyond your own.

If you are new to FOI, allow one to two hours to read the briefing materials and understand your assigned character’s biography before you begin. This will help you develop an informed perspective to bring to the scenes. Each scene focuses on a particular aspect of the process and discussion of the core issues takes approximately 20 minutes. You can work through the whole scenario in one sitting or schedule scenes separately over a series of sessions.

Explore how changing pressures affect decisions. The Luna Posse wants to know why its application to join the Astro Games League was rejected. One team’s disappointment might seem like a small matter, but its request opens a window into a larger question: what should people be able to know about decisions that affect them? The game invites participants to consider when government should explain itself, what interests might justify withholding information, and whether the FOI system makes public institutions meaningfully answerable to the people they serve. Through different points in the system, participants are prompted to consider whether FOI operates in service to a transaparency objective.

No. The relevant law, policy and public commentary have been compiled for you to explore in preparation for your meetings in the scenes. Examples are drawn from landmark precedents and recent controversies. The focus of the interaction in the scenes is to recognise the principles, incentives or interests that motivate different contentions and to engage with those who may not think the same way as you. Those who come with outside insights might add the fresh perspective that those who bring a depth of experience on the front lines. Everyone is welcome.

Each character has a digital twin. They have distinct profiles, including knowledge, interests, perspectives and constraints. These profiles draw on research into how people work within or encounter the FOI system, as well as policy commentary and decisions made in review processes. They are maintained with current legal decisions, policy developments and reporting. The AI is there to help surface perspectives and decision points. The participants decide what to make of them. Participants can engage with the AI characters to analyse principles, test arguments, encounter counterpoints and bring new questions into the discussion. A participant adopting a character's role may take a different view from that character’s AI counterpart—and that difference can be an opportunity to examine where and why their principles or judgements diverge. Through interacting with these characters, participants can arrive in the scenes with an understanding of the positions they may meet when others join the discussion.

Some characters are asked to create artifacts in the labs. When those assignments are submitted, they form part of the file used in the subsequent scenes. The digital characters are available to support participants in developing their submissions.

No. The facilitator interface provides prompts to guide the discussion, notes on issues to watch for, and nudges to help characters confront the tensions in each scene. These prompts draw on insights shared in policy, advocacy and activism with introductory notes to help hosts in framing and directing the engagement. The facilitator’s role is to help participants explore the issues and engage with one another. They don’t need to have all the answers - part of the challenge is being able to recognise issues, communicate them and engage with the counterpoints.

Experts we know are available to join your sessions, either as hosts or participants in your group.

This is a safe space for professional development. We ask that hosts and participants commit to these principles: 1. Be curious: ask questions and test contentions. Challenging the ideas, arguments and analysis is part of the process. 2. Be considerate: your character may meet this system from a perspective that you do not hold personally. You're being asked to recognise the constraints that operate around your assigned position - then it's up to you as to how you tackle them. 3. Respect: address the criticism rather than the critic. Engagement with fundamentally opposing points of view, with dignity, is expected.

Yes. These scenes set the initial process in motion. Through a series of twists, scenes invite participants to explore the system at different stages and from different angles.

Yes. We welcome opportunities to develop scenes with people who bring research, experience or a fresh perspective to the issues. Our section 47C scene, which explores the deliberative processes exemption, was developed with Dr Danielle Moon of Macquarie University Law School. Her doctoral research examined how the exemption is used and its broader effects on transparency and administrative practice. If there is an issue you would like to explore through a scene, we would love to hear from you.

Yes. Advocacy Arena uses AI to monitor for legal, policy and civic engagement updates. These materials are ingested into the system and infused into the character knowledge banks periodically. We use AI in this task. We do not warrant that our library is free from error, current or fit for any specific purpose. Humans audit the library to refine our systems.

Partly. Hosts set the boundaries. Some aspects of the scenario are cumulative. For example, the FOI reform dashboard presents aggregated feedback. Participants can elect to leave their contributions anonymously or with attribution. Others can review and develop arguments. Advocacy Arena uses these contributions to refine and develop the scenario. Hosts can create prompts that might be interesting in scenes. When they do, they can choose to share them with others who host future sessions (or keep them for private use).

The file notes provide a space to develop your position before engaging in a scene. Use them to organise your reasoning and structure your arguments. The tools offer structure, while the characters are available as sparring partners. Test an idea with them, challenge their response and use the exchange to refine your own thoughts.

Yes. Participants can share their observations of how participants engage in the scenes. The debrief notes assist in hosting that conversation. The trend reports show how the issues were appraoched, and draws on participant engagement with the digital tools in preparing these notes. It may help to identify where further practice, guidance or resources would be useful.