Just that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
I can think of one or two times where house rules were appropriate, and a couple of dozen times where they broke the game. I think that you should only apply a house rule where 1) the game is already broken and 2) you’re reasonably sure that the house rule won’t break it further. It’s good for when an otherwise fun game is ruined by something that the game designers overlooked.
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 days ago
Kinda. The most important part is that if someone disagrees with the house rules, they can choose to disassociate from the house and go somewhere else. There’s no state to say “this open field that’s not utilized is mine, bitch!” and then taze you.
emmie@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There’s the state neighbouring anarchists which can’t form a state and so probably they exist within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 days ago
U r assuming that anarchists would be peaceful n just roll over on their backs to show their tummies to Genghis Khan.
The goal of anarchism is freedom. The existence of a State means no freedom. Thus, anarchist militias unite to fight this threat. A stateless society doesn’t equate an unorganised society.
emmie@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Good luck being efficient and quick without central command. There’s a reason anarchism didn’t survive evolutionary process