Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You can keep pretending that moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, controlling NPCs and deciding consequences, but it won't ever be true. False Equivalences are false.
And strawmen are strawmen. Never once said moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, I said the role of "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going" is common to all games if you're insisting that if it's not assigned to a single person it still exists in a shared format. I mean, if you're going to try argument by informal fallacy, it really helps if you can do it without committing them yourself. Do yourself a favor, stop using the titles of the fallacies, instead, if you think you see one, argue why it's fallacious instead of just throwing out the title. For one, you'll realize you have only a loose grasp on the fallacies. For two, you'll be less likely to do the above.
Now, if you want to shift your argument to be that an element of RPGs involves the creation of fictional scenes where the play will take place, then that's very interesting and, I think, and excellent observation. But, it's not currently tied to either the working definition of a GM (A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going) nor do I think it needs to be. It's a good point standing by itself, and allows for games where this task is shared and where it is consolidated to a single role. Tying it to the GM's role and then having to modify the definition of GM to be something that can be shared evenly yet still be distinct is a path towards arguing for special exceptions.