Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7404591" data-attributes="member: 16814">Communication of ideas.&nbsp; If I define stupid you mean &quot;those with an IQ of less than 135&quot; and you defined out as &quot;those with an IQ less than 85&quot; and Bob defines it as &quot;people who think differently from me&quot; then we cannot habe a useful discussion about stupidity if we all keep using the same word for it.&nbsp; Outside of that discussion, however, your free to use it giver you want.&nbsp; If you purpose is actual discussion and understandibg, though, confusion of meaning because you all define a term differently is actively harmful to the goal.So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition.&nbsp; If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word.&nbsp; It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning.Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment. Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police.&nbsp; But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so.To be 100% clear, the underlying preferences of pretty much everyone in the thread are totally valid here.&nbsp; I don't disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on his preference; I'm running a game that fits his model to a T right now.&nbsp; I'm critical of his aggressive style and the need to define worldbuilding in a way that makes his argument correct when he already had a great point that didn't need to win the definition war.&nbsp; I think worldbuilding is a lousy term to try to coop into anything other than a nearly uselessly broad description of creation of fictional places.&nbsp; I think setting building, as defined by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], is a much better term for clarity and understanding.&nbsp; I dont understand the need to colonize worldbuilding and terraform (see what I did there?) its meaning so that it supports an independently valid argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7404591, member: 16814"] Communication of ideas. If I define stupid you mean "those with an IQ of less than 135" and you defined out as "those with an IQ less than 85" and Bob defines it as "people who think differently from me" then we cannot habe a useful discussion about stupidity if we all keep using the same word for it. Outside of that discussion, however, your free to use it giver you want. If you purpose is actual discussion and understandibg, though, confusion of meaning because you all define a term differently is actively harmful to the goal. So, if you want to use worldbuilding in a specific way, then you need to be very clear about your definition. If your definition differs fruition the generally accepted, you will get pushback because your introducing confusion by redefining a word. It's often helpful to establish a new term that clearly indicates your meaning. Insisting others accept your definition is fine in a paper or blog post, where you can define and expound, but in a multiuser discussion format you it's an impediment. Of course, you're free to do whatever you want -- I'm not the thread police. But, if you're going to complain because others don't like your redefining of words, I'm going to say I told you so. To be 100% clear, the underlying preferences of pretty much everyone in the thread are totally valid here. I don't disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on his preference; I'm running a game that fits his model to a T right now. I'm critical of his aggressive style and the need to define worldbuilding in a way that makes his argument correct when he already had a great point that didn't need to win the definition war. I think worldbuilding is a lousy term to try to coop into anything other than a nearly uselessly broad description of creation of fictional places. I think setting building, as defined by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], is a much better term for clarity and understanding. I dont understand the need to colonize worldbuilding and terraform (see what I did there?) its meaning so that it supports an independently valid argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification