Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8251794" data-attributes="member: 16814">[USER=463]@S'mon[/USER], [USER=7016699]@prabe[/USER],The issue here appears to be the former of the two I posited to [USER=6698278]@Emerikol[/USER], which is that some other conceptions are being smuggled into negotiation when these don't actually exist.&nbsp; There appears to be an expectation that negotiation requires an explicit understanding by all parties at all times that a negotiation is taking place.&nbsp; This is not required in the definition -- it's being smuggled in.&nbsp; No, negotiation is happening all the time -- you're imagining a specific, more formal and explicit discussion where both sides are formally engaged in negotiation.&nbsp; This is an example of the smuggling I'm talking about.&nbsp; You're negotiating with others all the time, about all kinds of things, on a nearly continuous basis.&nbsp; We're negotiating about what negotiating means, right now.&nbsp; Most negotiation is not brought to the conscious, explicit level because there is trust -- loss of trust is not the trigger for negotiation, but rather trust is often the basis for most negotiations.&nbsp; Negotiation is merely the seeking of an agreeable outcome to any situation where there is obfuscation of desires.&nbsp; And, since we can't know what anyone else is thinking (and are often clueless about what we, ourselves, are thinking) negotiation is a default occurrence in any social setting -- including RPGs.&nbsp; That most negotiations end up having both sides wanting the same thing doesn't change that the process of feeling out the other side and coming to a mutually agreed resolution doesn't happen, it just often does so below the level of being aware of the negotiation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8251794, member: 16814"] [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER], [USER=7016699]@prabe[/USER], The issue here appears to be the former of the two I posited to [USER=6698278]@Emerikol[/USER], which is that some other conceptions are being smuggled into negotiation when these don't actually exist. There appears to be an expectation that negotiation requires an explicit understanding by all parties at all times that a negotiation is taking place. This is not required in the definition -- it's being smuggled in. No, negotiation is happening all the time -- you're imagining a specific, more formal and explicit discussion where both sides are formally engaged in negotiation. This is an example of the smuggling I'm talking about. You're negotiating with others all the time, about all kinds of things, on a nearly continuous basis. We're negotiating about what negotiating means, right now. Most negotiation is not brought to the conscious, explicit level because there is trust -- loss of trust is not the trigger for negotiation, but rather trust is often the basis for most negotiations. Negotiation is merely the seeking of an agreeable outcome to any situation where there is obfuscation of desires. And, since we can't know what anyone else is thinking (and are often clueless about what we, ourselves, are thinking) negotiation is a default occurrence in any social setting -- including RPGs. That most negotiations end up having both sides wanting the same thing doesn't change that the process of feeling out the other side and coming to a mutually agreed resolution doesn't happen, it just often does so below the level of being aware of the negotiation. [/QUOTE]

Verification