PC to PC Parlay

I haven't played AW, but I have listened to the Walking Eye actual play.  I'm trying to imagine how PC to PC Parley would work in DW.  I'm most confused about the Defy Danger if the other PC refuses the Parley.  It would be great to hear some actual examples about how something like this went down in a game.

I guess I'm having trouble with the fact the the move seemingly forces the person making the Parley roll to somehow back up their threat, otherwise, why the Defy Danger?  This seems to take agency away from that player.  What if they wanted to bluff?

I've always interpreted this as a case where Defy Danger is a useful catch-all move whose name doesn't reflect what it does in this case.

Namely, there is no actual danger, rather the player is rolling to see if the character can overcome the persuasiveness of the argument. If they succeed they can overcome the persuasiveness and do what they like despite it. If they fail, they must do what they were told.

It's clearer in AW where you're rolling against Cool. It was weird in earlier versions of DW when Defy Danger was a DEX roll, but in Beta 1.1 you'd be rolling against CHA so it's clearer, in my mind anyway.

It's a little clearer, but only slightly so.

Exactly what would the player who wants to refuse be rolling, in this "Defy Danger"?  If anything, I would probably have them roll off their WIS to see if they have enough will to resist the CHA of the one doing the Parley.

But, I'm very leery of any move which forces a player to do something that they don't want to do.  Maybe in the case of some magical spell, but not just from a CHA roll.

Unless its been changed in Beta, Defy Danger doesn't force you to do anything.

I was refering to Anarchangel's interpretation above,

"If they fail, they must do what they were told."

That's why I would like to here concrete examples of how this went down in play, when someone refused a Parley, and how the "Defy Danger" went down in the game.

I can appreciate the idea of somehow factoring in your character's CHA in trying to influence another PC, but I think as written the move is vague and confusing, and can lead to undesirable side effects (meta-gaming, awarding XP for doing something against character, etc.)

Defy Danger doesn't, but Parley does, in my reading.

I'm a fan of social mechanics that can actually change a character's mind. So it's not that the character is forced to do something, it's that they now want to do something and system resists the player who doesn't want to to take a persuasion conflict result as binding.

I realise this is a contentious issue among gamers.