Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9025407" data-attributes="member: 71699">There seems to be additional thought needed to separate imaginary facts that the group decides should match their real counterparts, from imaginary facts that have no real counterparts. That chimes with what I have said about preexisting norms versus those that supersede or extend them.So in the case of oxygen consumption. As described, the group have a preexisting norm - oxygen consumption in the real world - that seems to them like the right norm to apply. It's jarring therefore if the GM supersedes that norm. A less jarring case would be where the GM said that 11 and not 12 turpled dragons are found nesting on turple trees, because there are no preexisting norms for turpled dragons and turple trees.In the oxygen example, it seems that the group did not confer expertise on the GM in regards to imaginary facts with real-world counterparts. Their expected norm was that such facts would mirror their counter-parts. In the case of turple dragons and turple trees, the GM is an expert just so long as it is conferred upon them; i.e. that they should be the one to select which imaginary domain is chosen. In this light, I can sketch out a case where the group established earlier that oxygen consumption in their fiction does not match that in the real-world. In this new case, the putative expertise of the chemical engineers does not apply. Only the participant conferred with selecting oxygen consumption facts can function as an expert.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9025407, member: 71699"] There seems to be additional thought needed to separate imaginary facts that the group decides should match their real counterparts, from imaginary facts that have no real counterparts. That chimes with what I have said about preexisting norms versus those that supersede or extend them. So in the case of oxygen consumption. As described, the group have a preexisting norm - oxygen consumption in the real world - that seems to them like the right norm to apply. It's jarring therefore if the GM supersedes that norm. A less jarring case would be where the GM said that 11 and not 12 turpled dragons are found nesting on turple trees, because there are no preexisting norms for turpled dragons and turple trees. In the oxygen example, it seems that the group did not confer expertise on the GM in regards to imaginary facts with real-world counterparts. Their expected norm was that such facts would mirror their counter-parts. In the case of turple dragons and turple trees, the GM is an expert just so long as it is conferred upon them; i.e. that they should be the one to select which imaginary domain is chosen. In this light, I can sketch out a case where the group established earlier that oxygen consumption in their fiction does not match that in the real-world. In this new case, the putative expertise of the chemical engineers does not apply. Only the participant conferred with selecting oxygen consumption facts can function as an expert. [/QUOTE]

Verification