Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5643253" data-attributes="member: 27160">If you simply dislike the theory and don't wish to use it, no burden of proof rests on you at all.&nbsp; Just ignore mentions of it.If, however, you wish to rubbish the theory, then, yes, a burden of proof does rest on you.&nbsp; If I were to slag off something you found useful, without a shred of supporting evidence, I daresay you would consider that rude and unreasonable - and I think you would have a point in doing so.Creative Agenda (i.e. &quot;GNS&quot;) is part of &quot;the big model&quot;.&nbsp; It hasn't been &quot;moved on&quot; from at all, except in the sense of expanding and refining it.The fact that you can't be bothered to actually read the coherent descriptions of the elements does not mean they are not there.&nbsp; They are quite tricky concepts to use well, I agree - I often misstep when doing so, but the definitions are &quot;coherent&quot; enough that, particularly if someone highlights my error, I can ususally see where (either they or) I have erred.Try actually reading the essays with a mind to understand what they are driving at - it's really not all that hard.The essays explain GNS at least as well as Plato's explanations of metaphysical forms or prognostications on civic politics.The term &quot;simulationist&quot; is certainly used in a plethora of ill-defined ways.&nbsp; Hence why, if you mean it in the &quot;GNS sense&quot;, it is important to be clear that you do so.It was the NPCs that got to me.&nbsp; I mean, Howard, Daffy and Scrooge, OK, but Huey, Dewey and Louie were pure (down) padding.&nbsp; And the &quot;Quack of Doom&quot; adventure is a canard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5643253, member: 27160"] If you simply dislike the theory and don't wish to use it, no burden of proof rests on you at all. Just ignore mentions of it. If, however, you wish to rubbish the theory, then, yes, a burden of proof [I]does[/I] rest on you. If I were to slag off something you found useful, without a shred of supporting evidence, I daresay you would consider that rude and unreasonable - and I think you would have a point in doing so. Creative Agenda (i.e. "GNS") is [B]part[/B] of "the big model". It hasn't been "moved on" from at all, except in the sense of expanding and refining it. The fact that you can't be bothered to actually read the coherent descriptions of the elements does not mean they are not there. They are quite tricky concepts to use well, I agree - I often misstep when doing so, but the definitions are "coherent" enough that, particularly if someone highlights my error, I can ususally see where (either they or) I have erred. Try actually reading the essays with a mind to understand what they are driving at - it's really not all that hard. The essays explain GNS at least as well as Plato's explanations of metaphysical forms or prognostications on civic politics. The term "simulationist" is certainly used in a plethora of ill-defined ways. Hence why, if you mean it in the "GNS sense", it is important to be clear that you do so. It was the NPCs that got to me. I mean, Howard, Daffy and Scrooge, OK, but Huey, Dewey and Louie were pure (down) padding. And the "Quack of Doom" adventure is a canard. [/QUOTE]

Verification