Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8628340" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Eh, I don't think that's entirely fair.  While there was some problems with GDS in this regard (the Simulationists had a tendency to have tunnel vision about the other agendas), it was possible to get broad general agreement by having the model developed by multiple people of varied agendas.  That's what I suspect went off the rails with GNS; one person had too much influence over it.But again, the tendency can be hosed down when you had multiples involved with different ones.  There was a lot of niggling detail that was controversial, but the big things were either outside the normal scope of the Threefold (the repeated Social question) or were cases of some people who were not really aligned with an agenda wanting to make it into something the majority didn't (Sim and genre emulation, which very few Sim proponents thought belonged there--or perhaps more accurately, was only argued by people who considered themselves Sim in an entirely different way than anyone else did--and even most of the Dramatists thought made more sense in Drama).  Now, that doesn't mean Gen's attempt to separate off the, I guess I'd call it layers, going on is not valid; but I don't think the connects in GDS were invalid or biased to any great degree, they just lacked nuance that Gen at least attempted to bring to it.</blockquote>