Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7403839" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ah, you were doing so well until you got to arriving bad motives to those that disagree with you.Worldbuilding is a uselessly broad term, but I don't think anyone using it broadly was doing so out of malice or mischief.&nbsp; Rather, it's more likely they, using the term broadly, felt attacked by those using the term now narrowly without clear statements of how they were using the term.&nbsp; Thers also the tendency in this thread for posters to define worldbuilding in a way tgat speed their preferences rather than to achieve a consensus on the use of the term.&nbsp; This cuts against both sides.Firstly, it's incumbent on someone narrowing the use of a term to be explicit about that, not on the reader.Secondly, I have not berated anyone for introducing a new term or phrase clearly defined.&nbsp; I've recommended this practice, as a matter of fact.Finally, my comment in setting building was that, absent clarification, i would not have assumed setting building was different from worldbuilding.&nbsp; It was not a rejection of setting building as a specific subset of worldbuilding activities, just a comment that it wasn't inherently obvious it referred to different things.&nbsp; Perhaps i could have been more clear about this at the time, and that's a criticism I'll take. But, at no time was I saying that such a term couldn't be usefully defined abd used to further conversation -- again, just that it wasnt obviously different without further definition.&nbsp; I apologise for any confusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7403839, member: 16814"] Ah, you were doing so well until you got to arriving bad motives to those that disagree with you. Worldbuilding is a uselessly broad term, but I don't think anyone using it broadly was doing so out of malice or mischief. Rather, it's more likely they, using the term broadly, felt attacked by those using the term now narrowly without clear statements of how they were using the term. Thers also the tendency in this thread for posters to define worldbuilding in a way tgat speed their preferences rather than to achieve a consensus on the use of the term. This cuts against both sides. Firstly, it's incumbent on someone narrowing the use of a term to be explicit about that, not on the reader. Secondly, I have not berated anyone for introducing a new term or phrase clearly defined. I've recommended this practice, as a matter of fact. Finally, my comment in setting building was that, absent clarification, i would not have assumed setting building was different from worldbuilding. It was not a rejection of setting building as a specific subset of worldbuilding activities, just a comment that it wasn't inherently obvious it referred to different things. Perhaps i could have been more clear about this at the time, and that's a criticism I'll take. But, at no time was I saying that such a term couldn't be usefully defined abd used to further conversation -- again, just that it wasnt obviously different without further definition. I apologise for any confusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification