Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Why?

Genuinely:  I walk into a bar for the first time with a group of friends.  I'm a bit strapped for cash, but I can afford a beer, and I figure that's as much as I can really handle anyway.  Joe says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Well damn!  Joe's a great guy!"  I take a drink, and toast his health.  Being a featherweight, I'm already feeling a bit woozy after one.  Bob says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Wow, these guys are the best ... I'm not really up for another drink, but I guess I'll join in."  I take a drink and toast everyone's health.  At this point the room is spinning.  Suddenly people are looking at me.  "Your turn, Tony!"  "My turn to what ... puke?" I think to myself.

In the case you cite it's an accident. Right? A for-real misunderstanding. There's a guy who buys drinks but it's not each of the buds buying a round. And when it turns out there's a problem, your quotes aren't "Sorry, chumps--I mean ... chums, there was no agreement!"

No, in your case it's a misunderstanding. In your case, you're even a light-weight so you're intoxicated. Like the mentally deranged guy who the courts exhonerate, you can't be responsible for your actions in this hypothetical.

On the other hand, if you're the guy who:
(a) Never buys a round unless it's negotiated before hand --and--
(b) The second time in, when you are again, strapped for cash, don't tell someone that you were light

Then I think the person's a schmuck.

In the philosophical case against cooperation--where you explicitly have no interest in upholding anyone else's idea of a good time at any cost to you it's not a misunderstadning. You're the (a) and (b) guy.

That's this guy:

QuoteI am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.

QuoteOne social system that works just fine is that a guy takes a girl out, spends a lot of money and attention on her, and then they have sex.  It's classic, and if everyone's on the same page it works.  But I hope we can all see that it's not cool for a guy who has spent money and attention on a girl to say "Now you have to have sex with me, because you didn't insist on paying your half of dinner when the check came."

Aren't you on the record as saying that you think non-consensual hurting of another person is cool so long as it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules of engagement?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoOn the other hand, if you're the guy who:
(a) Never buys a round unless it's negotiated before hand --and--
(b) The second time in, when you are again, strapped for cash, don't tell someone that you were light

Then I think the person's a schmuck.

Are you saying that you believe misunderstandings can happen once, but you don't believe it is possible for someone to misunderstand consistently?  My experience is that a misunderstanding, if not corrected, will tend to persist.

If you're presuming a world in which someone tells this guy "Hey, we usually order drinks in rounds, and expect that you'll chip in" then that would, of course, be different.  Then there's been some explicit communication, and that changes things.

But if you've got a guy who just does not get what's going on?  Who thinks his friends are rich and generous, while he is poor and grateful?  Where's the profit in labelling that poor guy a schmuck?

Quote from: MarcoAren't you on the record as saying that you think non-consensual hurting of another person is cool so long as it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules of engagement?

Absolutely.  I struggle to see the relevance of this to the quote you juxtaposed it with, unless you are saying that I condone rape.  Are you saying that I condone rape, Marco?

Things sure are feisty tonight.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you saying that you believe misunderstandings can happen once, but you don't believe it is possible for someone to misunderstand consistently?  My experience is that a misunderstanding, if not corrected, will tend to persist.

If you're presuming a world in which someone tells this guy "Hey, we usually order drinks in rounds, and expect that you'll chip in" then that would, of course, be different.  Then there's been some explicit communication, and that changes things.

But if you've got a guy who just does not get what's going on?  Who thinks his friends are rich and generous, while he is poor and grateful?  Where's the profit in labelling that poor guy a schmuck?

I think the guy who goes out with the conscious intent of pursuing his own fun at the expense of other people is not likely misunderstanding anything. That's a pretty solid position right there: "I'll take advantage of you if I find it fun and you don't protect yourself."

In the case of a real legitimate misunderstanding, there are degrees of willful ignorance and inexperience, acting in good faith, and so on. But I doubt the poor, grateful guy goes out with his friends going "I will consciously not hold myself responsible for your fun."

I also don't think that guy will non-consensually hurt the buddies he's so fond of. Doesn't sound very grateful. And, yes, I'd find the guy a schmuck.

QuoteAbsolutely.  I struggle to see the relevance of this to the quote you juxtaposed it with, unless you are saying that I condone rape.  Are you saying that I condone rape, Marco?

Keep in mind you brought the sexual aspect into this.

If I go on a date with the predatory intent of getting the other person very, very drunk so as to have sex with her (say, ordering doubles but not telling her unless she asks) in a state (or at a time) when this is legal does that count as rape? What if I know my date would never go out with me if I told her this?

If the only way it'll work is if she mistakenly places her trust in me?

I dunno. Legal non-consensual hurting: yes. Rape? You can decide.

-Marco

Outside of From Dusk Till Dawn, i don't think i've ever seen the "I may be a bastard, but i'm not a fucking bastard" defence before. Well played sir, have a point.

Quote from: MarcoI think the guy who goes out with the conscious intent of pursuing his own fun at the expense of other people is not likely misunderstanding anything.

Doesn't this just come back to the same "Cooperation is the default" argument that we've had before?

You think that a person who comes into (say) a roleplaying game thinking that it is a venue for competition (EDIT: when other people believe it to be a cooperate venue) is "not likely misunderstanding anything"?  Beg to differ, buddy.  That happens all the time from pure miscommunication, with no malice on either side.  Getting all het up about it doesn't do anyone any good.  The solution is not to cast blame, it is to communicate.

Quote from: MarcoIf I go on a date with the predatory intent of getting the other person very, very drunk so as to have sex with her (say, ordering doubles but not telling her unless she asks) in a state (or at a time) when this is legal does that count as rape? What if I know my date would never go out with me if I told her this?

Ohhhhh ... you are trying to imply that I condone rape.  That's funny.

Quote from: TonyLBDoesn't this just come back to the same "Cooperation is the default" argument that we've had before?

You think that a person who comes into (say) a roleplaying game thinking that it is a venue for competition (EDIT: when other people believe it to be a cooperate venue) is "not likely misunderstanding anything"? Beg to differ, buddy. That happens all the time from pure miscommunication, with no malice on either side. Getting all het up about it doesn't do anyone any good. The solution is not to cast blame, it is to communicate.

Your example had a lot of hoops to jump through to exonerate the guy: He's poor, inexperienced, and drunk. If we have a situation like this happening commonly in RPGs, you know--where the player is the sainted, grateful, poor guy--I think I can count on even a thimbleful of good faith between the participants to iron things out.

In terms of blaming anyone, I think it *is* legitimate to blame someone who knows they are going to do you damage, knows you would not consent to it, and are not expecting it, and does it anyway because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the rules of interaction and they enjoy it.

Quote from: TonyLBOhhhhh ... you are trying to imply that I condone rape.  That's funny.

I am pretty damn sure you do not condone rape.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIn terms of blaming anyone, I think it *is* legitimate to blame someone who knows they are going to do you damage, knows you would not consent to it, and are not expecting it, and does it anyway because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the rules of interaction and they enjoy it.

That's every competitive game, ever.  You blame someone who blind-sides you with an unexpected move in chess?

Quote from: TonyLBThat's every competitive game, ever.  You blame someone who blind-sides you with an unexpected move in chess?

There are spectrums of "games" from chess to global politics to RPGs. If someone considers dating a game and sex the victory conditions do you blame do you condone their blind-siding unexpected move of ordering doubles when their date isn't aware of it?

I would think not.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf someone considers dating a game and sex the victory conditions do you blame do you condone their blind-siding unexpected move of ordering doubles when their date isn't aware of it?

Personally, I'd consider them, not to be too blunt, to be emotionally retarded for looking at dating in that way.

There's one rule around my table that is relevant to this thread, irrespective of all the attempted fucking of door-knobs going on elsewhere. That is that the players have a responsibility not to be complete ass-hats to each other. I think that's called being an average human being in most circles. Play to the tone of the game and the company you keep or there will be sparks.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPersonally, I'd consider them, not to be too blunt, to be emotionally retarded for looking at dating in that way.

Well sure, the guy's a complete idiot--but there *are* a lot of guys out there like that. It's not like this is a new or unheard of thing. The idea that just because we consider something a "game" that it's okay to take advantage of people playing is highly questionable.

The idea that the unexpected move in chess is identical like the subterranean competition in an RPG is also questionable. EDITED: Traditional RPGs and games like chess are very, very much different. Same as chess and "dating." Fortunately unexpected competition in an RPG is not as despicable as taking advantage of someone on a date--but the difference is only in terms of the damage done, not the nature of the deception or the kind of mistake--and guys like Chris Chinn liken the damage done from unhappy roleplaying to the damage done in abusive relationships so it may not be that different than we think.*

-Marco
* I don't believe that's as true as he says. But I could be wrong about how bad it is for some people.

Is that really what your argument boils down to?  That competitive play in RPGs is more like date-rape than it is like chess?

Quote from: TonyLBIs that really what your argument boils down to?  That competitive play in RPGs is more like date-rape than it is like chess?

No: that RPG-play is often more like dating than it is like chess.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoNo: that RPG-play is often more like dating than it is like chess.

-Marco

LOL! Nice observation, Marco!

-clash