Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9780292" data-attributes="member: 6667921">[USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] I think this is where our views fundamentally diverge. The questions you’re raising all come from a procedural mindset—one that expects every option, outcome, and authority to be defined and contained within a formal structure. But that’s exactly what this idea isn’t about. It isn’t a rule, subsystem, or codified process to manage; it’s a way of thinking about pacing, tension, and responsiveness at the table.If a group needs the comfort of strict procedure or clearly bounded rulings to maintain fairness and flow, this probably isn’t a good fit for them—and that’s completely fine. It’s not intended to solve anything or replace existing mechanics. It’s simply a tool for tables that already operate on mutual trust and are comfortable leaning into the narrative without needing the rules to referee every moment.So in that sense, I don’t think there’s much more for us to unpack here. The approach you’re describing is built around regulation; the one I’m describing is built around discretion. They serve different tables, and there’s no reason one needs to validate the other.</blockquote>