Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8240468" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments.&nbsp; I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all.As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user.&nbsp; I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of &quot;protagonism,&quot; for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this.&nbsp; No, that &quot;confusion&quot; wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over.&nbsp; Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented.&nbsp; No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like &quot;living world,&quot; which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process.&nbsp; The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term.&nbsp; I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them.&nbsp; This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process.And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway.&nbsp; However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more.&nbsp; You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like.&nbsp; I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8240468, member: 16814"] I don't think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] needs to step back to realize this -- it's a fundamental underpinning of many of his arguments. I might be wrong, he's free to correct me, but I can absolutely say for myself that this is not a new concept for me at all. As for terms, the confusion about what they mean is limited only to those terms that have been used and not defined by the user. I don't think, though, this is your argument, because this argument says that my use of "protagonism," for instance, wasn't confusing because I spent many posts clearly, and without jargon, explaining what was meant by this. No, that "confusion" wasn't about what I mean by protagonism, but rather a war for ownership of the word, because the very word was viewed as good to be fought over. Much of that conversation was about trying to stake ownership in the word instead of engaging the concepts being presented. No, the confusion over terms is really about the use of things like "living world," which is deployed euphemistically in place of a clear explanation and has yet to be defined by those that use it in terms of process. The rest of it is arguing over who gets to define a term. I even offered to change my term, but this offer was ignored because the point wasn't to engage the concepts, but to argue over words and prevent engaged discussion of the concepts behind them. This is borne out by the continued refusal to accept any -- ANY -- combination of terms to define how play proceeds when the GM is the primary (usually only) source of information about the fictional world, instead resorting to euphemisms about the outcomes rather than the process. And, your final statement is also not novel -- I've said it multiple times throughout the thread in an attempt to deflect the arguments that have plagued the thread anyway. However, I believe that your use of it is different from mine -- I attempted to use it to say that analysis and criticism shouldn't deflect one towards or away from a thing that you like -- it's only use is to help refine what you like and do that more. You, however, tend to deploy such statements as a means to discredit analysis and criticism -- it's pointless because people like what they like. I, unsurprisingly, find this approach to be less than helpful to the hobby at large, and just defensive posturing to protect from perceived slights. [/QUOTE]

Verification