wedrifid comments on Play for a Cause - Less Wrong

7 Post author: brian_jaress 28 January 2010 08:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (57)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: wedrifid 28 January 2010 09:01:37PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 29 January 2010 03:58:12AM 1 point [-]

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 other words, you consent to game playing.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 January 2010 05:57:36AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: brian_jaress 28 January 2010 09:23:57PM 1 point [-]

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.