That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[prabe]

Your definitions are correct, except for the claim that these aren't kinds of negotiations.

If arbitration is a negotiation, then so is a court case. Making your case to someone else, whose decision you've agreed to accept, and who then decides, doesn't seem like negotiation to me; neither does going to conflict-resolution mechanics in a game--especially not combat resolution. There is a reason I have compared going to such rules as arbitration. And if those doesn't seem like negotiation to me, they're going to seem even less like negotiation to someone who is "precious" about their GM authority.

OTOH, you seem willing to describe any attempt at conflict resolution as "negotiation," which ... is gonna lead to a circular argument, which is silly because except for that word I don't really have a problem with the quotation.

 

[S'mon]

What would you call "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement"?

Not an Arbitration, for one.

 

[prabe]

What would you call "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement"?

Not to be argumentative (well, not much) but I'd call it what it is. If it's a negotiation, I'd call it that. Or dickering/haggling. Or maybe someone stepping in to mediate the dispute--to get the people to agree. Or someone arbitrating the dispute--rendering a decision the parties have agreed to accept.

All of those are different things, and arbitration is not a form of negotiation (though it is a form of coming to a decision).

 

[dragoner]

Not an Arbitration, for one.

Naturally, I would not either, nevertheless looking at the definition, it is listed as a synonym.

More than once at meetings, we have had to discuss what English words mean. A German engineer keep arguing that similar meant exactly the same as, and after it was proved that it didn't mean that, he said, he retracted his argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If arbitration is a negotiation, then so is a court case. Making your case to someone else, whose decision you've agreed to accept, and who then decides, doesn't seem like negotiation to me; neither does going to conflict-resolution mechanics in a game--especially not combat resolution. There is a reason I have compared going to such rules as arbitration. And if those doesn't seem like negotiation to me, they're going to seem even less like negotiation to someone who is "precious" about their GM authority.

OTOH, you seem willing to describe any attempt at conflict resolution as "negotiation," which ... is gonna lead to a circular argument, which is silly because except for that word I don't really have a problem with the quotation.

Well, yes, of course these are negotiations. I'm trying to get the arbiter or the judge to agree with goals by leveraging how they think on the law. The judge/arbiter is trying to find out which decision best suits their goals. That there is a large power disparity, in that the judge/arbiter has the ability to enforce their decisions (within constraints) doesn't remove the fact that there's a negotiation between parties.

I mean, you negotiate a surrender, and that's a case where there's a large power disparity. I think that the difference in power is being allowed to overshadow the part where you're negotiating terms, which happens in arbitration and in courtrooms. The defendant in a court is trying to negotiation terms where the judge will rule in their favor due to the arguments presented, and the prosecution is doing the same thing (adjust for civil procedures as needed). The judge has goals of ruling well so as to increase the odds of remaining in office/gaining prestige/looking good in the press or less savory goals. All parties are trying to maximize their positions relative to the others. This is a negotiation.

And no, not all conflict resolution is a negotiation. If someone is shot dead, that resolves a conflict, and there's no negotiation. Negotiation is part of social interactions.

 

[dragoner]

Not to be argumentative (well, not much, but I'd call it what it is. If it's a negotiation, I'd call it that. Or dickering/haggling. Or maybe someone stepping in to mediate the dispute--to get the people to agree. Or someone arbitrating the dispute--rendering a decision the parties have agreed to accept.

All of those are different things, and arbitration is not a form of negotiation (though it is a form of coming to a decision).

I am mostly just curious myself. A "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement" was the instant definition, and I was hoping to not have used it wrong in my earlier post.

My native tongue, Russian is nothing like English, and last weekend, speaking and writing in Russian to friends made me see how badly it had decayed, now I am back here in English, hoping it is ok. lol

Tomorrow, I give it all up and only will communicate by math, or the occasional meme.

 

[prabe]

I am mostly just curious myself. A "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement" was the instant definition, and I was hoping to not have used it wrong in my earlier post.

My native tongue, Russian is nothing like English, and last weekend, speaking and writing in Russian to friends made me see how badly it had decayed, now I am back here in English, hoping it is ok. lol

Tomorrow, I give it all up and only will communicate by math, or the occasional meme.

Yeah. I thought I remembered that English was not your native language. English has stolen too many words from too many languages to be a perfectly clear tool for communication; it's a shame it's the only language I really have.

 

[Lanefan]

Arbitration is a type of negotiation, usually with a (supposed) disinterested moderator. Mechanics often fulfill this role, but it's important to note that this arbitration is between players -- the GM is not the arbitrator in this concept, they're a participant.

Er...if, as in most cases, the GM is also the enforcer of the mechanics, doesn't that by default give her the role of arbitrator?

 

[dragoner]

Yeah. I thought I remembered that English was not your native language. English has stolen too many words from too many languages to be a perfectly clear tool for communication; it's a shame it's the only language I really have.

Each language has its strengths and faults, while English can be vague in meaning, its ease of use is one of the major reasons it has become the lingua franca of the planet. Chinese, for example, as another language, is more difficult. Some languages translate better too, such as my my mother is Czech-Austrian, and all those nations small, have plenty of speakers of a variety of languages. Even a quick search of people with her last name in the Moravian Gate area Czech Republic by Ostrava where her family is originally from, brings back Czechs, Jewish, and Sinti results, and we are all probably somewhat related. America is pretty amazing for its use of English.

 

[S'mon]

Well, yes, of course these are negotiations. I'm trying to get the arbiter or the judge to agree with goals by leveraging how they think on the law. The judge/arbiter is trying to find out which decision best suits their goals. That there is a large power disparity, in that the judge/arbiter has the ability to enforce their decisions (within constraints) doesn't remove the fact that there's a negotiation between parties.

I mean, you negotiate a surrender, and that's a case where there's a large power disparity. I think that the difference in power is being allowed to overshadow the part where you're negotiating terms, which happens in arbitration and in courtrooms. The defendant in a court is trying to negotiation terms where the judge will rule in their favor due to the arguments presented, and the prosecution is doing the same thing (adjust for civil procedures as needed). The judge has goals of ruling well so as to increase the odds of remaining in office/gaining prestige/looking good in the press or less savory goals. All parties are trying to maximize their positions relative to the others. This is a negotiation.

And no, not all conflict resolution is a negotiation. If someone is shot dead, that resolves a conflict, and there's no negotiation. Negotiation is part of social interactions.

But the arbitrator or judge does not need the other party to agree to their ruling. The other party may be seeking to negotiate with the arbitrator or judge, but the arbitrator or judge is not negotiating. They are not 'trying to reach an agreement'. That's what mediators do.

I don't know why you are so hung up on defining a huge area of social interaction as 'negotiation'. My suspicion is it may be something to do with hostility to GM authority - if people come to see the GM as 'negotiating', then they are not acting as a referee or judge, their decisions are no longer authoritative. The alternative explanation, that you simply do not understand what the word means, is still possible but becoming less likely. But maybe you've been blinded by some theory gobbledegook that got you really excitted - it can happen to all of us.