And the hosts who want to use strict enforcement of rules that were designed around not being enforced unless something bad enough to notice had happened bear no blame?
Are they not just as dishonest?
What about the internet cheerleaders who validate such behavior with their "rules are rules" ignorance, as if things were that simple?
My point was that saying "it's only hosts" or, indeed, "it's only guests" is not fully honest.
Edit:
I think the underlying thing is hard to set out. Basically, it's "don't be a dick", and it applies to both hosts and guests. But how do you enforce that? So this devolves into a situation where everybody tries to pin the blame on the other, and / or make sure to cover their ass as much as possible.
Which brings me back to my general point: this is why we can't have nice things.
I've been constructing my own fantasy that there is an emergent-trust-group-of-respectful-people where "nice things" are just normal.
Perhaps implies an opposite group of defective arseholes together?
Maybe aspirational but the idea is to just be reliably good and eventually others trust you and you become part of a trust network.
I've had it happen at the scale of individuals: once you've shown you're trustworthy and unselfish then many people seem to respond to that with goodness.
Most people can smell selfishness such as "manifestation" thinking. I find it difficult to be generous without intent of obligations. I believe it only works if you're genuinely good with no strings attached.
Kindness is easier.
I'm no fan of karma or religion or magical woowoo: even though ultimately the idea perhaps has the same roots as those.
It isn't reciprocation: that is transactional investment. Reciprocation definitely works fabulously well. However it has debts and credits, and I have some sort of unreasonable antipathy towards those both. We live in a transactional society, and many people inspect every action of others for their needy goals. Or people have their own currencies and balance sheets.
I try to frame the fantasy more rationally as an emergent behaviour of society as a response to defectors.
So far my main negative proof against the whole idea is that I've had life pretty good even though I have been normal levels of selfishness. I'm still working on how that fits in.
Meanwhile I'm giving the experiment a good go. I like to test against my own reality. Finding I'm wrong is usually valuable.
It's a poorly thought out fantasy. Too many reasons why it is broken: Like seeing givers enable takers, or selfish people winning good things.
(edited to make clearer)