What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

You are expressing fear about the vague possibility that people may equivocate terms.

Fearmongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So who is generating majority of the fiction? If the DM is framing, setting the scene, playing the NPC's and on the most common roll also narrating fiction... How is he not still the majority contributor in this game? No one is arguing it is the same as say D&D, only that in both the lion's share of the fiction is generated by the GM.

EDIT: You seem to be arguing that the games operate under different constraints... that's not what I've argued against.

I'm uncertain where you're trying to go here. This seems like a set up for something, but I don't think it's saying what you think it does, given your other arguments in this thread. Does the GM create fiction in Blades? Yes, of course they do, this is an uncontroversial statement. Can that be considered the majority of content generation? Here I'm very much going to disagree. If I get to oblige you to generate specific kinds of fiction, then it's hard to say that you're the primary generator of fiction, even if this is so by volume of words. The players in Blades do so much more direction of what fiction is created, even if the GM is doing the actual legwork with speaking, that it's not exactly fair to say that the GM generates the majority of the fiction, even if the majority of the words spoken are by the GM. This is where I think a key point is being elided by your claim. It's like saying that both unshorn poodles and chihuahuas are covered in fur -- this leaves quite a bit of information about the differences between poodles and chihuahuas out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was also Ad Hominem. Rather than counter the argument, he attacked you directly.

I think it is safe to say this has moved from conversation to contact sport

 

[Aldarc]

Fearmongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

The particular issue in this case is equivocation of meanings in forum discourse.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it is safe to say this has moved from conversation to contact sport

I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies. He likes citing them, but is often wrong. Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior. It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin. That would be if he ignored making any argument about a specific behavior, called you names, and said you were wrong because you were those names. That isn't this.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion about words and their meanings: Check out our new word, Fearmongering!

 

[Aldarc]

It was also Ad Hominem. Rather than counter the argument, he attacked you directly.

His argument has already been countered multiple times. Countering it again is just gratuitous violence.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies. He likes citing them, but is often wrong. Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior. It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin. That would be if he ignored making any argument about a specific behavior, called you names, and said you were wrong because you were those names. That isn't this.

Taking a moment to step outside the snakiness here: why do you have to be so nasty to him? This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with. I don't particularly care whether the argument Aldarc was making qualifies as an ad hom fallacy (frankly I don't care if its fallacious). We are literally just disagreeing about how to describe the stuff that happens in a game session: that really shouldn't warrant the kind of vitriol that is arising.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wouldn't rely too much on Max's take on informal logical fallacies. He likes citing them, but is often wrong. Here, for instance, @Aldarc discussed specific behavior and labeled it. That's not an ad hom, because it's discussing specific behavior. It might be wrong, but it isn't the informal logical fallacy of ad hominin.

I think his point was he attacking the argument by labeling it fear mongering (at least in that post: obviously he addressed the argument itself in other areas of the discussion). i don't honestly know or care whether this instance qualifies a proper ad hom. I don't think MaxPerson was deeply invested in that notion ether. I suspect he was mainly responding to the spirit of Aldarc's posts towards me (which I would say have largely been hostile, and here doubly so). He is also probably responding to the fact that basically everyone in the thread is dog piling on me. I don't particularly care if folks do that. They can if they want. But that is what so often happens in threads with this circle of posters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Taking a moment to step outside the snakiness here: why do you have to be so nasty to him? This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with. I don't particularly care whether the argument Aldarc was making qualifies as an ad hom fallacy (frankly I don't care if its fallacious). We are literally just disagreeing about how to describe the stuff that happens in a game session: that really shouldn't warrant the kind of vitriol that is arising.

I'm not being nasty. Max often throws out informal logical fallacies when they aren't actually there. I clarified that there was no logical fallacy, made no statement about the correctness or incorrectness of @Aldarc claim of fearmongering, and left with a pithy joke. Please, continue with hashing out this latest brouhaha over the meaning of words.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not being nasty. Max often throws out informal logical fallacies when they aren't actually there. I clarified that there was no logical fallacy, made no statement about the correctness or incorrectness of @Aldarc claim of fearmongering, and left with a pithy joke. Please, continue with hashing out this latest brouhaha over the meaning of words.

It is being nasty, you are singling out another poster and basically making fun of their grasp of a concept like fallacies (which in nerd circles, and we are in a nerd circle, has lots of social value). If you want to attack someone or belittle them, go ahead, I don't report posters as a rule. But don't do it and act like you are not.