In the context of playing with friends, it was once the norm for us to assume good faith in peoples actions. In my opinion this is why Tom says
As in most of the "more lose" rules of the game (in contrast to the Inalienable Rights and the Social Contract), there's one good test:
If there is a discussion about whether or not, then it almost certainly isn't.
If the case doesn't jump out, then it almost certainly is fine, even if some people don't like it.
These rules are meant to stop blatant abuses of the game mechanic. They are constanly being abused by whoever gets shafted to whine and complain and try to get the devs involve in a way that would tilt the balance of in-game events.
If we need to discuss it, even a little bit then there is doubt. If there is doubt then as we are friends we should in good faith believe in our friend. Does this work in practise? I don't know I'm generally the last person you want to talk to about social interactions. However a fixation with preventing ALL instances of gaming mechanics to me does not seem like something I would be preoccupied with if I was truly playing with friends. Family perhaps but not with friends.
Thus it seems in the context of providing a friendly and trusting environment that a great many cases of gaming some of the more complex elements is going to occur. One would like to think that the environment engendered by this attitude might give rise to less
occurrence of people trying to do so.
