I see mutual consent as an important element of games.
If you really believe the world is at stake and have a way to extract value from me without my consent then I don’t philosophically objection to you playing that game. In the sense that I tend to approve of people doing what is rational for them even if I have to punish, shame or implement potentially terminal deterrent measures.
If you really believe the world is at stake and have a way to extract value from me without my consent then I don’t philosophically objection to you playing that game.
I guess that bit about “mutual consent” was sort of a cryptic remark on
my part.
What I was trying to say is that I generally feel everyone except the
players should butt out unless there’s a dispute. If I suggest that a
particular game be played or offer “official” rules as a third party, I
won’t mind at all if the players agree to do it differently or plug a
loophole. I think it’s important for everyone involved to have that
attitude.
If you really believe the world is at stake and have a way to extract value from me without my consent then I don’t philosophically objection to you playing that game. In the sense that I tend to approve of people doing what is rational for them even if I have to punish, shame or implement potentially terminal deterrent measures.
In other words, you consent to game playing.
Sure, if ‘I will kill you if you try anything but acknowledge that you are making the right move given available info’ counts as consent.
I guess that bit about “mutual consent” was sort of a cryptic remark on my part.
What I was trying to say is that I generally feel everyone except the players should butt out unless there’s a dispute. If I suggest that a particular game be played or offer “official” rules as a third party, I won’t mind at all if the players agree to do it differently or plug a loophole. I think it’s important for everyone involved to have that attitude.