What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

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.

As far as you're concerned doesn't add up to much when it's incorrect. Anyway, I'm moving on. You used the word poorly, you don't want to admit it, whatever.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As far as you're concerned doesn't add up to much when it's incorrect. Anyway, I'm moving on. You used the word poorly, you don't want to admit it, whatever.

I really didn't Fenris. I used it correctly.

 

[prabe]

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

Your objection to the use of the fiction in this thread was that it was an equivocation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

The problem is two-fold: I have been involved in a number of threads with posters from this thread, where I recall equivocation occurring around the term the fiction. I am not going to go back and comb through them to find the posts. What's more, I don't feel like getting more aggressive hostile responses that will inevitably result if I raise up posts from another thread involving posters here just to prove this point (as it was a fairly minor one). My biggest concern with fiction is it seems like a highly equivocal term to me, and will be prone to the sort of misuse I have described in the future. If you disagree that is fine. I can't tell you what to think.

 

[Fenris-77]

I really didn't Fenris. I used it correctly.

No, you didn't. See the definition of the word set next to your actual use of it. Really though, this is a sideline. Let's step back a second.

If what you wanted to express was a concern that some people might, for example, use the word fiction to mean something else, something more specific, then sure, maybe they would. Maybe on purpose (which would be equivocation) or maybe not (which would be ambiguous). The actual point is that with a stable definition of fiction, which has been provided ad nauseum, that isn't an issue.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Ah, more handwaving to evidence that you recall, but cannot produce, that proves your point. You do see the problem here, right?

And, you're misunderstanding the definition of the logical fallacy, because it requires that someone use a word in one sense, and then a different sense, in the same argument. The first example is that you have a right to do something, so that makes it right to do. This is an equivocation, and it's utterly absent in this thread with regards to the term "fiction."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Your objection to the use of the fiction in this thread was that it was an equivocation.

No a term on its own can't be an equivocation. My objection was it is a term people tend to equivocate on, and that it is pretty obvious to me, it will lead to lots of the kind of equitation I am talking about. I said the fiction is equivocal (which just means having more than one meaning), and specifically I said things like "highly equivocal" because it carries so many terms that can be problematic in RPG discussions.

 

[Fenris-77]

Equitation is the art or practice of horse riding or horsemanship

 

[Bedrockgames]

And, you're misunderstanding the definition of the logical fallacy, because it requires that someone use a word in one sense, and then a different sense, in the same argument. The first example is that you have a right to do something, so that makes it right to do. This is an equivocation, and it's utterly absent in this thread with regards to the term "fiction."

This is exactly the meaning of equitation I am using. Again, I didn't say anyone in this thread equivocated on fiction (and if I did, that was unintentional). My objection is to how its been used in the past that way, and to how it will IMO be used.

 

[Fenris-77]

Also, having more than one meaning is NOT equivocal.