model proposition

[Le Joueur]

Given that Gareth is not interested in supporting any such model, and that I am left out here defending the idea alone when I did not start it, I will acceed to quitting the thread. But I still believe that a model can be created that looks for that "Something Else" and is only related to GNS as much as Stance is. And I'm still interested in seeing that looked at.

Actually Mike, I think you are supporting a manner of thinking, independant of a suggested model.  To extend what I started in The Alchemy Metaphor, you'd be interested in exploring the identification of 'Elements' instead of arguing about 'Atomic states,' like we have been for so long.  I take your point very well that the identification of 'Elements' in no way invalidates (or even makes any kind of value statement on) 'Atomic theory.'

Let's hope this discussion becomes two separate discourses as it obviously is (to me).

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

1) clearly identify the issue (which in another thread I started I state that I believe this has not been done).

Hopefully I have now better articulated some of my concerns.  Primarily, I find the the GNS limited in my ability to make decisions that are or want of a better term about portrayal, which I think is a discrete goal.

2) identify how the GNS model (yes I said the GNS model, this is the GNS model forum after all) address or fails to address this issue.

GNS breaks what appear to me to be a single issue into a sort of subset of Sim and a nominal Narratavism, which I do not find satisfying.

3) only if the model fails to address the issue adequately is there a need to adjust the model or design a new one.

It may be that a look at the ordering of decisions will turn up a way to reconsile N and S in such a way as to make the problem go away, but failing that I would probably consider, privately, a four way model unless rendered redundant by further developments.  I have not exactly gone away and developed a solid counter proposal to the GNS, but I see no harm in some speculative discussion.

[Mike Holmes]

Actually Mike, I think you are supporting a manner of thinking, independant of a suggested model.

Probably very much so. In which case, however, it still makes sense to discuss it elsewhere.

Mike