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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9759157" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mean, the "con" in "con artist" means confidence trickster, as in, someone who abuses the confidence (=full trust) of another person. So, yes, by definition I would say such a person is being coercive.And, to put my cards on the table, I have an extremely negative view of the vast majority of coercive actions that a private person can employ against another. So...yeah. Just putting that out there right from the start.Did they carry out their fiduciary duties? Meaning, did they specifically inform that client about the risks of this investment, making clear that there was a meaningful chance of significant loss? Negligence is still a failure of fiduciary duty, and can qualify as coercive.If this banker genuinely made the risks clear, and the client signed off knowing the risks, then no, it isn't coercive--because they knew exactly what was going on. If they made an error of judgment from their own And I am of the opinion that the GM should not think that. The best outcome is the one that happens.I consider it just as bad as any other form of coercion. I don't fudge. Ever. I use other techniques which make clear to the players what's going on. That way I'm not lying to them. I'm playing with my cards face up. It's not a matter of perfection vs imperfection; I simply...don't do that thing. It's easy enough to consistently not fudge, just as (for example) it is easy enough to choose not to lie to other people IRL.I mean, I guess? I refuse to run any game in a coercive way, regardless of system (currently, DW.) Yet I can still run quite effectively--I have players hoping to return after extremely well-justified need to step away.</blockquote>

Verification