Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8647153" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'm a little less on board this, mainly because GDS was first developed for the explicitly to be able to talk about these things in a coherent way, and it served our purpose back in the day halfway well.  I do think it requires everyone to be on at least mostly the same page on what a term means, however, and the GNS distinctions having become terms-of-art with a fairly wide swath of people makes this probably easier for them but harder for everyone else, since it means there's a considerable drift in the way the concept is being perceived by others (and I say that even though GNS gamism is the closest to the way GDS gamism was used, and probably the least likely to create problems with third parties of the three in general (though it being off is not new; GDS gamism was largely defined by non-gamists, which is why the version of it used in John Kim's essay has some artifacts in it that neither I nor Gleichman (nor I think, Szonze) really agreed with).So to discuss it in this way, you need the group doing so to decide and largely stick-to a usage, and that really was only done by GNS users in this thread, and those not using GNS didn't find their usage altogether useful, so here we are.</blockquote>