If U read his article, it appears that “qualified yes” presumes dispensing with
— traditional game theory;
— the problem that his reasons of nuance (1) is
contrary to specifics (2; and couched in m&a v. litigation); and
talking is good (3, which is true but means ‘not a whole lot’), though
–I agree with his 4 part/discussion points to evaluate whether it’s feasible —
a. Outcome—goal achieved
b. Risk—harm avoided
c. Process—steps taken and institutional consequences
d. Amount at stake
Tweet

Reply