Yeah, anytime you see this face, you know they're kidding (or trying to get you mad for fun):
On the idea of no force. I'm guessing that means you can pretty much get away with anything that doesn't involve violence. So if you con someone, they're conned, but maybe there's commercial agencies that blacklist con artists to limit their activity or some other system of merrit. Not sure what there would be for enforcing contracts but I'm guessing it's down to taking collateral that ensures delivery or something.
Maybe force can also pertain to blackmail and certain threats other than those of physical violence, but who knows.
From the previous talk of bloodlust and gladiators, I'd imagine they have some kind of rules to allow violence. Maybe criminals are sentenced to the ring with a bloodlust spell cast on them to fight it out for the crowd's pleasure as punishment or maybe you can actually challenge people and legally fight them in the ring to settle some disputes.
**************
On the discussion of cheating. I made a post for this but must have lost it. There's a bit of a difference between cheating and "playing".
A cheater is deceptive. They are effectively having relations with multiple partners while leading one or more partners to believe that the relations they have with them are exclusive. Sometimes they outright lie, sometimes they knowlingly let the partner/s presume, but either way the partner/s are left purposely ignorant of the cheater's inexclusive relations with them. In effect, we're talking about dishonesty.
A "player" is honest. They are having relations with multiple partners, but they never lead the partner/s to presume they are in an exclusive relationship and there are no others, or knowingly allow the partner/s to presume the relationship is exclusive. Certainly, a partner might not like relations with someone who are not exclusive to them, but so long as the partner is aware then they can make an informed decision about if they wish to have non-exclusive relations with the "player" and if they decline then that is their informed choice, if they accept then that is also their informed choice and deception has not played a part.
In this case, Bern has given Maytag every indication that she intends to be intimate, exclusively with Maytag. If she is intimate with Polly and does not inform Maytag, it could easily be regarded as cheating. If she hides the act from Maytag then there can be no doubt that it's cheating. However, if she contacts Maytag on her ring and informs her that she has changed her mind then she's covered for the most part. If Maytag is happy and gives her blessing then there's no problem. If Maytag doesn't, then its up to Bern to decide if she wishes to proceed and risk their relationship or decline intimacy with Polly to keep Maytag happy. If she decides to go ahead, despite objections from Maytag, then its up to Maytag to decide if she can withstand that or to break up with Bern.
Note: While it could be construed as cheating if you get into a deep exclusive relationship with someone and later inform them that you no longer wish for it to be exclusive (thus forcing them to choose between ending the relationship or accepting it as non-exclusive), in this case Bern was sincerely honest when she indicated to Maytag they she intended to be exclusively intimate with her. Someone could be construed as a cheater if they made the same promise but knew that they would change their mind later and force the choice upon the partner... well... they'd at least be dishonest.
Certainly, Maytag would likely not have a problem with giving Bern her blessing for intimacy with others and could even be alright if she only heard about it shortly after the act. But if Bern tries to keep it from her, I'd imagine there might be issues of trust.