thread: 2009-07-13 : How About Some Q and A
On 2009-07-15, Callan wrote:
"It's simply that, demonstrably, we can agree to things moment-to-moment that violate our previous agreements about who has authority over what."
For myself, that isn't demonstratable/an agreement being demonstrated - it's humouring other people for moment to moment gain.
For myself, someone shows they aren't capable of agreeing to something if they break previous agreements - particularly agreements about the very activity were in.
I guess it's an add on to the lumpley principle: I have to agree (with myself) that your capable of making an agreement. You can't tell me something between two people is an agreement - I have to agree whether it is.
Are there any standards for who is considered capable of making an agreement, in the smelly chamberlain thread? Like say player 1 says his PC shoots player 2's PC dead. Player 2 nods in affirmation. Then player 2 says his PC walks over to the window, aims and snipes the king, then looks for affirmation? Does the thread include any standard maintained about who it's possible to make an agreement with and who has broken them in such a way that it's not possible (by personal standard) to make any agreement with him? Or was the standard for the thread basically whatever anyone can get away with?
Just to contrast, in terms of my standards no lumpley principle was going on - no one was agreeing in the way I call agreeing, so no lumpley principle. They were just humouring each others idea they had agreed, for moment to moment gain/shits and giggles.
