Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8733474" data-attributes="member: 71699">Definitely not deliberately! So where I say......then the performance or journey I mean is the sequence of contributions to the narrative within the SC, so contained within the &quot;hole of golf&quot;. I accept that I might have extended your analogy outside what you had in mind for it (always a risk with analogies.) Apologies if so.I don't quite understand your objection here. I accepted your matrix on face value (as existing), and spoke to each part. Perhaps we have a mutual misunderstanding?For sure. I don't think I wrote anything to the contrary.At the start of this chain I did feel a doubt about whether you were making a value judgement, so I flagged that with a question. You responded that you meant what you said, which I (mistakenly, right?) took to mean that you intended to make the value judgements that were implied (by words like &quot;against&quot; and &quot;arbitrary fiat&quot;.)The above all comes as a surprising turn to the discussion, but of course I accept that you in fact did not intend a value judgement. I think SCs can be useful in traditional play, in part because they typically already accept systematically determined conclusions to resolutions in the form of combat. That said, clocks are possibly more successful at the same job.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8733474, member: 71699"] Definitely not deliberately! So where I say... ...then the performance or journey I mean is the sequence of contributions to the narrative [I]within [/I]the SC, so contained within the "hole of golf". I accept that I might have extended your analogy outside what you had in mind for it (always a risk with analogies.) Apologies if so. I don't quite understand your objection here. I accepted your matrix on face value (as existing), and spoke to each part. Perhaps we have a mutual misunderstanding? For sure. I don't think I wrote anything to the contrary. At the start of this chain I did feel a doubt about whether you were making a value judgement, so I flagged that with a question. You responded that you meant what you said, which I (mistakenly, right?) took to mean that you intended to make the value judgements that were implied (by words like "against" and "arbitrary fiat".) The above all comes as a surprising turn to the discussion, but of course I accept that you in fact [I]did not[/I] intend a value judgement. I think SCs can be useful in traditional play, in part because they typically already accept systematically determined conclusions to resolutions in the form of combat. That said, clocks are possibly more successful at the same job. [/QUOTE]

Verification