What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

What matters is the definition of the word, in plain English. Not your obfuscation, or poetry, or anything else. Just the definition, which you were wrong about and refuse to own up to. Nothing has shifted, or changed, you just used a word you didn't understand fully.

But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's got nothing to do with being anyone's punching bag. If anything, you've been using the word 'equivocation' like a weapon to disambiguate discussion here for a while. This isn't complicated, you obviously were mistaken about what the word means, and are obviously unwilling to own up to it. Great, lets move on. I'm not treating you like a worm, which is an interesting rhetorical dodge in and of itself, I'm just holding you accountable for you rhetoric. You've spent pages crapping on peoples posts because of 'equivocation' but when push comes to shove, you don't know what that actually means. This isn't personal at all, and if you think it is you don't know me well enough.

 

[prabe]

But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.

In order for there to be equivocation in communication, someone must equivocate. Equivocate is a verb, and requires a subject. Who do you think has equivocated?

 

[Fenris-77]

But I am using equivocation as it is used in logic, not everyday speech. I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't require intention to equivocation in logic (though it certainly is likely intention exists). I am just using the word as I was taught in my logic course. And looking up the meaning of it in a philosophical dictionary, it looks like my memory of the term is quite accurate.

You aren't. The basic definition of the word is enough to show that. The active component to the definition is what rubbed everyone's rhubarb the wrong way, so just own up to misuse rather than continuing this wacky shuck and jive act like there's some other definition that makes it all ok.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's got nothing to do with being anyone's punching bag. If anything, you've been using the word 'equivocation' like a weapon to disambiguate discussion here for a while. This isn't complicated, you obviously were mistaken about what the word means, and are obviously unwilling to own up to it. Great, lets move on. I'm not treating you like a worm, which is an interesting rhetorical dodge in and of itself, I'm just holding you accountable for you rhetoric. You've spent pages crapping on peoples posts because of 'equivocation' but when push comes to shove, you don't know what that actually means. This isn't personal at all, and if you think it is you don't know me well enough.

Your language couldn't be more personal Fenris. Sorry, you were attacking me. And I am going to respond if attacked by you.

And I believe I do know what the word means. Again, I posted several philosophical definitions and none of them said anything about intentionality. And it isn't like I can know anyone's intentions anyway, I can only speculate on intentions. But I can talk about how in the past the term has been equivocated upon in that way, and how I believe it will be in the future.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In order for there to be equivocation in communication, someone must equivocate. Equivocate is a verb, and requires a subject. Who do you think has equivocated?

In other threads, when we were debating things like being able to run a living world, and agency of player characters, I believe several posters were. But I am not going to name them when I am already on the receiving end of a massive dog pile. I do believe though that some of the different meanings of the term fiction were used in ways that could be considered equivocation. But again, more importantly, I think it is a term that will be prone to a lot of equivocation in future. That is one of my main reasons for not adopting it.

 

[prabe]

In other threads, when we were debating things like being able to run a living world, and agency of player characters, I believe several posters were. But I am not going to name them when I am already on the receiving end of a massive dog pile. I do believe though that some of the different meanings of the term fiction were used in ways that could be considered equivocation. But again, more importantly, I think it is a term that will be prone to a lot of equivocation in future. That is one of my main reasons for not adopting it.

Who, in this thread, used the fiction to equivocate?

 

[Bedrockgames]

You aren't. The basic definition of the word is enough to show that. The active component to the definition is what rubbed everyone's rhubarb the wrong way, so just own up to misuse rather than continuing this wacky shuck and jive act like there's some other definition that makes it all ok.

Fenris, yes I am. You can be rubbed the wrong way if you want, but as far as I am concerned, I was using it correctly according to its use in logic (and in terms of the active component, I wasn't even commenting one way or the other on whether people were actively equivocation). And when I invoked equivocation it was as a logical issue. Either way, you don't have to accept that. I really do not get your hostility or most anyone else's.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who, in this thread, used the fiction to equivocate?

I never stated anyone equivocated in this thread, I said I remembered them doing so in earlier threads (it is possible someone did in this thread, but I would have to back and read posts to see). And like I said before, I am not going to name anyone because frankly I don't feel like getting dogpiled on by more people

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be clear: I do think this has happened on prior threads around the term The Fiction. And I think it will arise in the future if this term were adopted by the gaming community at large. But I don't believe intentionality is required for there to be equivocation, there just needs to be a conclusion that doesn't logically follow because one premise uses one meaning, and another uses a different meaning.

Cites, please. Unfortunately, as much as it would be pleasing to do so, taking your word for it is right out. You need to show the evidence that "fiction" when used to describe the results of RPG play, is taken to mean a literary work like a novel. This is your claim, and you cannot just handwave at vague evidence you think has happened.