There is definitely room for reasonable discussions on calls. But if I was in a group that broke down and couldn't move on, I would stop playing with them. he ability to move on is something I consider pretty important. When I was younger I remember having to play with people who would hold up a game over a dispute and I realized at a certain point, you just need to move on.
Okay. That answers the question of "what happens if you hit a totally, completely irreconcilable problem".
It doesn't answer the question "what happens if the player doesn't 'instantly agree'?" Because that was the thing said. That players would "instantly" agree and everyone would move on. I consider that a ridiculously pie-in-the-sky perspective. There are going to be not just a few things but
plenty of things where players won't "instantly agree and...move on". Indeed, framing it in those terms, of
instant agreement, is precisely my problem here, and why I use terms like "capitulate" or "surrender" or "submission" or the like--the vast majority of things where I agree "instantly" with someone I had previously disagreed with enough to raise the issue, I'm definitely not going to agree "instantly", and the only way I could
reach "instant" agreement is by just suppressing any and all advocacy for my own interests, aka, total capitulation.
There remains a (rather vast!) gap between "instantly agree" and "totally, completely irreconcilable problem". Again,
one side of this is presenting a hard binary of either problems that are instantaneously solved with zero issues ever, OR the first problem that comes along is infinitely irreconcilable and thus the group shatters on contact with it. Surely,
surely there are more states between those two points! Surely we do not live in a world where everything is THAT extreme! After all, folks have been telling me I've been making others' positions too extreme, they have to have
meant that, right?
...right?
