Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PapersAndPaychecks" data-source="post: 2208298" data-attributes="member: 28854">Laws' work is preferable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that (as Adamantineangel points out above) it goes beyond describing the problem and begins to offer solutions. However, the main reason why I prefer Laws' work is that he tries to use words according to their express or intuitive meaning.  He doesn't try to rewrite the dictionary for his audience.  Edwards, on the other hand, is very careful about choosing what he wants his words to mean and then limiting the range of applications that he permits (plenty of evidence already in this thread from people telling us "You can't describe XYZ in GNS terms" - apparently for no better reason than "Because Edwards says so.") Edwards' terms "Simulationist", "Narrativist" and "Gamist" bear only a very passing relationship to what most people would understand by the words he uses.  Let me see if I can illustrate Edwards' mental sleight-of-hand here by exaggeration and parody. I'm going to present an argument based on one term, which I define as follows: Wrong (adj) - Anything written by Ron Edwards Congratulate me!  I've proved that Edwards is wrong!  - For a given definition of "wrong". Likewise Edwards has proved a lot about Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism - but only if you accept his definitions.</blockquote>