Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6838628" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, but the OP basically makes a commonly used subjective term, and turns it into objective term jargon.  At least, with the scale, everyone can *see* it is jargon from the start.  With the OP scheme, it isn't obvious, and that's a huge communication problem.  Folks will not be able to differentiate whether a speaker is using the colloquial, or the jargon, and you're no better off than when you started.  Plus, from past experience, folks who use the jargon will get all superior and huffy about how *they* have a system, and how the natural-language user is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, as if a thread on EN World has enough exposure to reach more than a the people who actively post in it, and/or as if someone here is Ron Edwards to define RPG words for others.  So, all the trouble of having to explain a jargon *every single time you use it*, with the interpersonal communications issue of telling someone who was using normal English that they were wrong for doing so.  Not a good plan.But really, my suggestion was a bit tongue-in-cheek.Setting a standard for a particular discussion ("I want to talk about this, and here's what I mean when I say...") is fine - often a good idea.  But constructing jargon as if it will somehow spread and become a standard?  Not a recipe for success.</blockquote>