Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7404676" data-attributes="member: 16814">I have no issue with what you've written above.  It was notably missing highly charged terms such as zealotry and religious defense, though.  Using the charged terms you chose to use carries a distinct connotation alongside a definition that works against your more points above -- zealotry, for instance, is a fanatic devotion which isn't the same thing as emotionally fraught thinking.  Your use of the terminology the first time prompted me to respond with a careful admonition that you were sliding into accusing others of bad motivations (zealotry isn't something that would garner the description of a good motivation, after all).  Your response doubled-down on the charged terms, which shorted out any good points you were making.If your contention is merely that people can and will respond emotionally, I think our recent exchange clearly shows that to be true.  I feel, however, that this cuts even more towards my advice that people clearly define their term usages and even try to adopt non-conflicted terminology rather than continue to war over the ownership of a contested word.A war which, largely, your response to my other post below continues.Of course it runs both ways, that's been my point all along -- the term is highly contested and therefore it's better to be extremely and repeatedly clear as to your definition of it (something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] admirably did, but only after how many pages of confusion?) or, even better, adopt a non-contested word or phrase for your take on the matter.An example of this is the other worldbuilding thread where I coined several new terms to coherently and clearly describe the styles as I was discussing them.  Many of those terms are now in common use in that thread by other posters and are still true to the meaning I gave them.  By moving away from 'worldbuilding' and the contest of definitons in that thread and supplying 'preparation' which more closely matched the OP's usage, there was no confusion on my points that revolved around the unique definitions each poster had of worldbuilding.  I practice exactly what I preach.Worldbuilding does mean excessive detail creation about a fictional setting, just as you claim (without evidence, mind) that the internet sources largely say (accepted arguendo).  But those sources ALSO say it's any details about a fictional setting, and that there are many methods that generate different quantities of material with different focuses, so it's clearly not all set in stone.  Even the full pages of the sources cited by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] introduce complication to the simple claim that worldbuilding follows his personal definition.  It does, but it also means other things that aren't his definition.  Yet, here we are, arguing over who gets ownership of "worldbuilding" when the answer is truly that we all do -- we're all supported by the various definitions of worldbuilding.  And that's what makes it useless for discussion unless we all agree to the same definition.  And, since that seems unlikely (and probably unpossible(sic)), a better method would be to be clear, every time, what you mean when you use worldbuilding, or, even better since it avoids all argument over the definition of worldbuilding, coin or adopt a new phrase or word that you can clearly claim with your definitions.  "Setting-building" along with the clear definition of such, is a great usage.</blockquote>

Verification