Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone skilled in doing it. -> *Anyone else skillful enough could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If > someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it > interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute > with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be > "acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to > actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view. > > If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be > "game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged? > If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually > interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're > someone who hasn't engaged? > > Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone > skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not > because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for > presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content > itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know > they're someone skilled in doing it. > > But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might > actually never result in anything too different between us in practice and > I believe we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I > shouldn't argue more lol. >
