Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8286803" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Are you familiar with Hockey or American Football?These are sports with extreme structure.&nbsp; Hockey players in particular are repeatedly making the following post-game statement &quot;we trusted our structure.&quot; They are saying this because &quot;their structure&quot; is a set of principles, rules, and constraints that govern everyone's roles and responsibilities which gives them a certain sort of coherency of purpose and volition and (assuming they follow it, get good at it, and possess the requisite athletic/cognitive traits) prowess.&nbsp; If &quot;someone goes rogue&quot;, they &quot;lose the integrity of their structure.&quot;&nbsp; When they &quot;lose the integrity of their structure&quot;, something else happens that doesn't proceed from the loop of &quot;we trusted our structure&quot; &gt; &quot;we followed our structure&quot; &gt; &quot;reliably, x result occurred as a byproduct.&quot;&nbsp; That &quot;something else&quot; is virtually never good (particularly long term as a tendency to &quot;go rogue&quot; proliferates and people start not trusting other players to be where they're at and do what they're supposed to do...so &quot;going rogue&quot; is something of a &quot;virus&quot; in this case).Now Hockey and American Football are not TTRPGs, but structure (and all of its properties and downstream effects on the constituent parts of the system) is structure...and &quot;lack of structure&quot; or &quot;going rogue&quot; is &quot;lack of structure/going rogue&quot;...even if &quot;lack of structure/going rogue&quot; is &quot;working as intended.&quot;&nbsp; The two are not the same things in inputs, in the machinery of the process, in the experience of the process, and in outputs no matter whether its a ball sport or a combat sport or or a military op or planting a garden or setting up a traffic paradigm or setting up a system of governance or playing a game.Simply having a system where the participants each have cognition isn't where things end.&nbsp; That is the starting point.&nbsp; What happens downstream of that cognition (primarily how answers to pressures and sensitivities emerge within a system and which ones are ultimately selected for) is where the interesting things happen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8286803, member: 6696971"] Are you familiar with Hockey or American Football? These are sports with extreme structure. Hockey players in particular are repeatedly making the following post-game statement "we trusted our structure." They are saying this because "their structure" is a set of principles, rules, and constraints that govern everyone's roles and responsibilities which gives them a certain sort of coherency of purpose and volition and (assuming they follow it, get good at it, and possess the requisite athletic/cognitive traits) prowess. If "someone goes rogue", they "lose the integrity of their structure." When they "lose the integrity of their structure", something else happens that doesn't proceed from the loop of "we trusted our structure" > "we followed our structure" > "reliably, x result occurred as a byproduct." That "something else" is virtually never good (particularly long term as a tendency to "go rogue" proliferates and people start not trusting other players to be where they're at and do what they're supposed to do...so "going rogue" is something of a "virus" in this case). Now Hockey and American Football are not TTRPGs, but structure (and all of its properties and downstream effects on the constituent parts of the system) is structure...and "lack of structure" or "going rogue" is "lack of structure/going rogue"...even if "lack of structure/going rogue" is "working as intended." The two are not the same things in inputs, in the machinery of the process, in the experience of the process, and in outputs no matter whether its a ball sport or a combat sport or or a military op or planting a garden or setting up a traffic paradigm or setting up a system of governance or playing a game. Simply having a system where the participants each have cognition isn't where things end. That is the starting point. What happens downstream of that cognition (primarily how answers to pressures and sensitivities emerge within a system and which ones are ultimately selected for) is where the interesting things happen. [/QUOTE]

Verification