I don't feel I added any assumptions. I took you at your word with the toy example, and expected symmetry. The toy-owner was exerting such an extreme degree of control over the toy, the other children could do very little with it other than, if we presume it's an action figure for example, moving its arms around and doing that "toy bouncing around to pantomime speaking/acting" thing. If it were a racecar, running it over relatively smooth surfaces or along constructed tracks carefully reviewed by the toy owner. If it were, I dunno, a squirt gun, getting to stand still and squirt it at something (since running around could plausibly damage it, and thus would not be permitted).
This one matches my vision exactly. Indeed you have more vivid image in mind than me. So the difference isn't here.
I applied the same logic to the GM with their setting. Nothing harmful would be permitted. If the GM ever thought, for even a moment, that anything potentially harmful were to occur, it would be nixed instantly. The players would have zero chance to respond in any way to this; their one and only acceptable response would be instant acquiescence. That much you did specifically say, albeit in different words. You were very clear that anything the toy owner opposed would immediately cease, and the other children would do so without even a hint of question or comment. Such instantaneous acquiescence is not a behavior I expect from children, I admit, and indeed not behavior I really expect from any human in general, other than maybe soldiers receiving orders, but I granted it because it was your example and you set the parameters.
I wonder where you got those bolded parts from? I will give a stab at a speculation further down. But this do not harmonise with my vision. Indeed I have a hard time seing how that first thing could even be
possible. The rest harmonises with my vision except I imagine we might differ a bit in what constitutes "harmful" in RPG context. (Including agreeing that the friends are behaving weirdly exemplary - but it is an example after all)
That's why I said you were changing the parameters now. Now it is acceptable to comment or criticize. Now it is acceptable to, as you say, "leave fingerprints". Now it is acceptable to run the racecar over rough surfaces, even if that might nick the paint or scuff the tires a little. Previously, nothing--not one thing--even potentially harmful would be permitted, and the other children had to be eternally vigilant for any sign of denial. Now that vigilance is not required. This feels like a frustrating shift, to me. Perhaps you did not intend that--but I took your words as they were said. Here is the post, with the relevant lines bolded:
I don't think I never used the words "comment and critisise" in any of the two examples. In my mind the ability to comment and critisise has been an unquestioned ability, and as such my vision when writing has always included that posibility. Again, I wonder where you have gotten this notion from? And for this I cannot even speculate, so I would really like it if you can give me some more clue! (Even if zooming in on
acceptability I can only see me describing the kid being opiniated about
actions done with the toy - nothing about how the friends should express opinions about the toy)
And it is absolutely not acceptable to run that car over rough surfaces!!!! (The fingerprints can be removed, even if the job might be tedious).
Of particular note: "clear instructions", "rapidly shoots down any idea...that they are worried might damage their toy"; the friends "do not question or push, but immediately defer", and they do so "whenever they [the owner] voice any opinion" on the subject.
I stand by all those words. But this I think is the crux. You missed an absolute essential 3 words in this summary: "being good friends". More below.
Any opinion gets instant deference. The friends do not question or push--at all. No question, no commentary, instant acquiescence. Any and all such behavior is "rapidly [shot] down". There are "clear instructions" about which behaviors are acceptable; anything else is presumptively unacceptable.
The reason for instant deference is absolutely
crucial for this example, and you seem to have missed it. They are so well behaved because they are
being good friends. It is not because of some notion on the friend or kid's part that such behavior would be
unaccepable. No test for what
would have happened if any of the kids had deviated from this is included in the example as it
simply doesn't happen.
You might try to extrapolate what yourself think might have happened, but that wouldn't match my vision as I actively hadn't taken any stance on that question. It was simply irrelevant to my example as I saw it. One thing I am quite certain about is that it would involve a very unhappy kid, and a strained friendship. I cannot see any way the kid had actually been able to stop it if one of their presumed friends, for whatever reason, decided to ignore the kid's pleas?
Were these things not what you intended me to be operating under?
Except for that I do not understand where you got your ideas related to freedom of expression, and that you appear to have missed the reason for the friends being well behaved, I think we actually seem to be very much on the same page?