Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9220446" data-attributes="member: 71699">Taking negotiation as "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement" one rhetorical consequence I have noticed - in part through our debate in this thread - is an implication that such agreement is contingent. That conflicts with my observations of actual play; and while it serves the expectations of some modes of play, it gets in the way of the expectations of others.I would rather label things what they are. For instance, I would rather label questions asked for the sake of clarifying our shared fiction, "clarification". I would rather label statements that establish uncontested truths, made by participants who - through prior agreement - have been given high ownership of the relevant facet of the fiction, "assertions". Tacit consent to such assertions - secured through the same prior agreement - I would rather label "tacit consent". And of course, when the conversation is perturbed - which happens during play for all kinds of reasons - I would rather call our discussion aimed at reaching shared agreements, "negotiation".I would rather avoid semantic loadings with rhetorical consequences, and so much as possible apply the plainest term. Lengthy debate such as we are presently mired in make a good case that "negotiation" is not the plainest language for conducting equitable communication with folk holding diverse perspectives. That said, I feel like I've benefited from reading all the different perspectives here, so maybe one can respect that value of fraught language for driving debate?</blockquote>

Verification