What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

I feel like this thread would be far more interesting and productive if people weren't constantly riding to the defense of ideas and other posters who don't need defending.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity) and where the theorized harm has never occurred in the wild despite the very thing you argued about being out there for decades (referring to game outputs as "fiction")? You may feel your arguments are valid, and sound, but there's good evidence that they just don't pan out at all.

I think my arguments were sound. Just some people didn’t agree with them

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity)

no I meant equivocation. I said the ambiguity of the term made it easy to equivocate on, and the nature of its meanings probe to equivocation in RPG discussion: so I described it as a highly equivocal term. You don’t have to agree with me. But you can at least disagree with what I am saying and not twist my meaning

 

[Fenris-77]

You don't seem to be using the word equivocation in any way that I'm familiar with. The word implies an active attempt to use imprecise language, which carries with it a significant charge of acting in bad faith on someone's part. I don't think that what you're talking about though, which means that ambiguity or ambiguous language use is actually what you're talking about.

Edit: I'm not saying the above to be unfriendly, or confrontational, but I think you're missing the active, bad faith part of what equivocation means. If you aren't you may want to be clearer about which actors you are accusing of bad faith.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You don't seem to be using the word equivocation in any way that I'm familiar with. The word implies an active attempt to use imprecise language, which carries with it a significant charge of acting in bad faith on someone's part. I don't think that what you're talking about though, which means that ambiguity or ambiguous language use is actually what you're talking about.

Equivocation doesn’t require nefarious intent, it can even be unintentional. It just requires that an argument shift on the multiple meanings of a term at different stages of the argument leading to a conclusion that isn’t valid. I have been giving more than one reason for objecting to fiction. One is its potential for equivocation (I feel this has happened in past threads here where the fiction has been used as a term; but more importantly I think it is a term ripe for the same kind of equivocation you see with the term story: which most certainly occurs). The other objection was that, because it carries so many problematic connotations (at least in terms of gaming discussion) that murkiness and ambiguity creates problems. These are two desperate, but related objections

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think my arguments were sound. Just some people didn’t agree with them

I know you think this. However, your arguments about how "fiction" will be misconstrued do not show up in the wild, even after more than a decade of it being something not uncommonly used. If we go by the metric of "does your idea have evidence to back it" and "is there a large body of evidence where it would show up," those answers are no and yes respectively. So, lots of opportunity, no evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however, but at some point, it's pretty convincing. How long do we need to keep checking to see if your concern comes true to lay this to bed, and remember, I cannot prove a negative, just show there's no positives.

 

[Fenris-77]

Equivocation doesn’t require nefarious intent, it can even be unintentional.

Nope, not the word you're looking for, which may have been part of the problem. Here's a generic definition:
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself. You notice there the absolute need for an active attempt to conceal or mislead? That's common to every definition you can find. You don't have equivocation without that active attempt. So either you're accusing someone of an active attempt to mislead, or you're using the wrong word. I'll let you decide which is which I guess.

 

[Ovinomancer]

no I meant equivocation. I said the ambiguity of the term made it easy to equivocate on, and the nature of its meanings probe to equivocation in RPG discussion: so I described it as a highly equivocal term. You don’t have to agree with me. But you can at least disagree with what I am saying and not twist my meaning

I know you meant equivocation, but you've used it incorrectly, which is what I said. I don't think you intended to use it incorrectly, but you have. Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally, in this case it would be to use a word with the intent to not clearly express an idea. This is not what happened, at all, as everyone was extremely clear with what they meant. You instead kept insisting that the word could, maybe, possibly, be misconstrued and mistaken for a different meaning. That's being ambiguous, not equivocal.

EDIT: I see @Fenris-77 beat me to this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nope, not the word you're looking for, which may have been part of the problem. Here's a generic definition:
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself. You notice there the absolute need for an active attempt to conceal or mislead? That's common to every definition you can find. You don't have equivocation without that active attempt. So either you're accusing someone of an active attempt to mislead, or you're using the wrong word. I'll let you decide which is which I guess.

My understanding of equivocation is it is merely the shifting from one meaning to another of a word in an argument, which produces a conclusion that just doesn't follow. It is a problem of logic, not a problem of intention. Obviously it is often going to be used intentionally. But I can't get into the head of people equivocating in their arguments. The end result is the same whether the intention to do so is there. You see people equivocate on multiple uses of a word all the time without even realizing they are doing so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know you meant equivocation, but you've used it incorrectly, which is what I said. I don't think you intended to use it incorrectly, but you have. Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally, in this case it would be to use a word with the intent to not clearly express an idea. This is not what happened, at all, as everyone was extremely clear with what they meant. You instead kept insisting that the word could, maybe, possibly, be misconstrued and mistaken for a different meaning. That's being ambiguous, not equivocal.

EDIT: I see @Fenris-77 beat me to this.

Again, it is always possible I am wrong, but the way I was taught this in logic fit with this definition:

Equivocation​

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.
Examples:

1. I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show. So, I think I'll watch this "Real World" marathon tonight instead of studying for my exam.
2. The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore there must be a cosmic lawgiver.
3. God: "One million years to me is a second." Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?" God: "A penny." Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?" God: "No problem, just a second."
4. Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a headache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make noisy children go away.
5. A warm beer is better than a cold beer. After all, nothing is better than a cold beer, and a warm beer is better than nothing.
6. Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.
7. I don't see how you can say you're an ethical person. It's so hard to get you to do anything; your work ethic is so bad
8. From Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass: "You couldn't have it if you didn't want it," the Queen said. "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today." "It must come to jam today," Alice objected. "No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: today isn't any other day, you know."
9. Philosophy is supposed to stand on neutral ground. But most philosophers argue for very definite conclusions. This is hardly standing on neutral ground. Shouldn't we conclude that most philosophers aren't doing philosophy?
10. Sarah was put in classes for the exceptional student. But i discovered that despite her age she could hardly read. Surely she was put in these classes by error.

Or this one from a philosophical dictionary:

The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.

And here is the definition of equivocal also from a philosophical dictionary:

Having more than one meaning; see univocal / equivocal.