But these people obviously want to preserve something in themselves over the long term. Yet the idea of a right is, in it’s logistical form, is that you preserve someone elses qualities for the benefit of having the same qualities preserved in you. You protect their resource, they protect your similar resource.

Here they aren’t – not even just at a moral level it’s dumb. It’s dumb logistically, because they all pat each others backs and say so and so quality about them should be preserved. Yet at the gaming table they expect these qualities preserved in exchange for them protecting nothing similar in regards to the qualities the people who happen to be players have.

I’ll grant there’s no evidence consent can be granted. But treating it as possible to give has a fairly large amount of evidence for being beneficial to all organisms involved (and here were not talking land being ‘given’ for glass beads, either).

This is neither moral, nor is it even a cold hearted and cynically logistically sound. It’s just retarded, whichever lobe of your brain you look at it through.

Some sort of gaming god? Or the right just somehow exists?

Actually, this makes a whole lot of “to fudge or not” discussions seem entirely different; some people, there, are arguing for the right to play as they do, others are making more general points.

I could dispute the “just following” part, but given what you seem to mean by the terms used in this conversation, it would be unproductive at best.

The fact is, if I wanted things done exactly as I intended them myself, I’d do them myself. I only work with other people precisely because they do things in ways I wouldn’t. Having a big old chat at the start would not only delay getting things done(or get nothing done at all), it may just harmoginise the group and defeat the point of working with other people.

They can just send back and forth computer-like “picture 207 completed” messages or “picture 653 acceptable” (maybe it’s a big book!).

It’s only when you get something like “picture 536 doesn’t fit” that you get issues, and have to talk them through. But also, right at the start, you need a bit of chatting to get that starting project framework understood by the participants, so the picture guy knows exactly what is expected of him.

A bit of “wooing” might be quite helpful in a situation like that! It kills the ambiguities and allows you to talk like computers, superfast and rigorous, but with a way to step out back into woolly language when the computer-talk doesn’t cut it.

Perhaps that’s something to do to avoid service denial is to simply state at the start that’s how one is posting(if you do happen to be posting that way, of course – I guess you might not), rather than trying to woo anyone?

How often are people gunna use that search term? Not very often, lol! But it’s first place none the less.

And all the other key words I use to try and generate traffic have alot of competition. Really I should have named it makemoneycashboobies or something (joking!)