Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4035242" data-attributes="member: 4937">From my experience, 'Group A' and 'Group B' is not a useful distinction.&nbsp; In practice, the two groups can be and often are behaving in exactly the same way.&nbsp; The distinction tends to actually be most important in fact only in theoretical discussions.That's because even if you hold 'A' as your nominal position, and I would say that I do, in practice you end up holding 'B' as your actual position as often as not.&nbsp; Because in practice, you are reutinely turning to the rules to resolve the question of cause and effect.&nbsp; You only continue to hold 'A' as a strict position if you have no rules at all, and that turns out not to work either because its easier for the referee to resolve propositions according to the same ad hoc standards he used last time - at which point they stop being ad hoc.&nbsp; Likewise, if you are nominally 'Group B', but you ever feel the need for some new rule on the spur of the moment because the rules are silent on the matter and you don't have the inclination to resolve the situation by fiat (almost by definition this is true) then in practice you are acting just like a 'Group A' person.Beyond that, mainly the difference is pure 'tribalism', whether you call it 'group a' or 'group b' or 'gamist' vs. 'simulationist'.&nbsp; In point of fact, the two theoretical positions can't and don't play out 'pure' when actually applied.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4035242, member: 4937"] From my experience, 'Group A' and 'Group B' is not a useful distinction. In practice, the two groups can be and often are behaving in exactly the same way. The distinction tends to actually be most important in fact only in theoretical discussions. That's because even if you hold 'A' as your nominal position, and I would say that I do, in practice you end up holding 'B' as your actual position as often as not. Because in practice, you are reutinely turning to the rules to resolve the question of cause and effect. You only continue to hold 'A' as a strict position if you have no rules at all, and that turns out not to work either because its easier for the referee to resolve propositions according to the same ad hoc standards he used last time - at which point they stop being ad hoc. Likewise, if you are nominally 'Group B', but you ever feel the need for some new rule on the spur of the moment because the rules are silent on the matter and you don't have the inclination to resolve the situation by fiat (almost by definition this is true) then in practice you are acting just like a 'Group A' person. Beyond that, mainly the difference is pure 'tribalism', whether you call it 'group a' or 'group b' or 'gamist' vs. 'simulationist'. In point of fact, the two theoretical positions can't and don't play out 'pure' when actually applied. [/QUOTE]

Verification