FAQ

[james_west]

This forum clearly needs a FAQ.

I suggest it contains:

(1) A set of definitions (or paradigms, or whatever) of G/N/S

(2) An explanation of what it is supposed to apply to, and be used for.

(3) An explanation about why redefining it is not as useful as using it for further development.

Anything else ? Anybody feel confident enough to write it? Ought it to be somewhat collaborative?

          - James

[Logan]

Brian, relax. No worries, okay?

>(1) A set of definitions (or paradigms, or whatever) of G/N/S
-----------------------
Yes. All the definitions will be accounted for.

>(2) An explanation of what it is supposed to apply to, and be used for.
-------------------------------
Yes. Certainly, Ron and I will make sure all of this is covered.

>(3) An explanation about why redefining it is not as useful as using it for further development.
---------------------
Not quite. There is a Current Issues section which lists the ideas we are debating here. As the definitions evolve and we fill in the blanks (and there are still some blanks to fill), we'll add them to the document.

>Anything else ? Anybody feel confident enough to write it? Ought it to be somewhat collaborative?
-------------------------
I'm already writing it. More accurately, I'm compiling it from hundreds of posts generated in discussions on GO, here, in e-mail, and other places. I'm collaborating with Ron. That should be acceptable to all.

Final note: The intent is to keep the thing up to date. A big part of the problem we have with misunderstanding is that System Does Matter is over 2 years old. The definitions have evolved since then. We will present the current state and try to keep it updated monthly.

Best,

Logan

[james_west]

Logan - Glad someone's on top of it ! The only request I'd make is to take into account the fact that a lot of putatively reasonable people find the language mildly objectionable. If you can write definitions that attempt to address these concerns, without altering the meaning, I'd strongly encourage that approach.

Brian - I'm not really a person who steadfastly defends
G/N/S: if you'll note, the bulk of my more longwinded posts in this forum lie in the realm of critiques (and I've only been aware of the model for a few weeks.)

However, while I may be in danger of being convinced by my own rhetoric (always a bad thing!), the more I see these arguments, the more I agree with my original post in this forum: different systems of intent are all mapping the same space, fulfilling the same purpose, and for all intents and purposes are functionally equivalent. If that's true (and I think it is), further discussion on that particular topic is a lot like arguing about the superiority of forks over chopsticks (or visa versa). I'm tired of doing tine counts after only a few weeks; I can only imagine what it's like after years.

This is why, I think, the way Logan proposes to address the issue is a very good idea: with an explicit current issues section, in order to try to avoid reinventing wheels.

To reiterate: G/N/S is probably not absolutely the best classification system for RPG goals. However, it's certainly a functional system, and so long as people have a common understanding of it, it is a perfectly serviceable framework within which other issues may be addressed.

                        - James

[Ron Edwards]

Chiming in, briefly:

The under-construction FAQ will of course be subject to any and all comments from anyone. I imagine it will undergo a certain amount of tuning in its first few days of existence, once the Assembled Forgites get a look at it.

In other words, Logan and I are not forcing anything down anyone's throats - not without giving them a chance to chew on it first, anyway.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

I find it interesting in the extreme that none of the people who so steadfastly defend G/N/S will debate the differences in it with the original developers of the Threefold and in fact are willing to close the door on debate even in their own forum.

As a response to this you may find my recent post in the "Simulation and Subjectivity" thread of interest...I think I do a decent example explaining why responding to critique time-and-time again are ruinous to achieving any sort of goal.
It might be compared to perfecting oneself out of a result...the comment about Catholic priests debating with atheists when the topic is defining the experience of godhead is particularly pertinent.

That is: there's a time for debate and taking apart and there's a time for exploration of an existing concept, otherwise you could spend all day or year debating whether or not the thing being discussed even exists.

We must agree on a point to start from in order to discuss the impact and use of GNS; if we spend all day arguing about that starting point, NOTHING will get done.

For example, the question 'Does God even exist?' does not help answer the question, 'How do we experience godhead?', it may be pertinent, but it is actually counter-productive to the discussion.  The priests must make -- rightly or wrongly -- some starting 'assumptions' to deal with the question itself, and one of those would be the premise 'God exists.'

So, 'God exists, how do we experience him?  Go.'  Those are the bounds of the debate, the starting assumptions.  'Does God exist?' is a seperate debate in and of itself...but if it makes one more comfortable, one can change the question to, 'If God exists, how do we experience him?'

Good science is like this as well...'How does a black-hole work?' was a purely theoretical question for many years, because one had never been discovered.  Yes, one could have debated (and did), 'Do black-holes exist?', and could have done so until one was finally discovered, and if that is ALL that had been concentrated on it would have been a huge waste...instead they worked out how they would work if they existed...regardles of whether they did or not.
Base assumptions were made so the work could be gotten to.

Likewise, if it makes you more comfortable to think of it this way, the purpose here on the Forge seems to be to just go ahead and start examining and developing the GNS thing in relation to games and gamers, using working assumptions about its validity -- even if those assumptions turn out to be wrong later (they can always be modified) -- because we need to *start somewhere.  We must have a common-ground to begin from to get deeper into the subject or we'll be arguing about what amounts to 'the theoretical existance of...' for years.

I for one am sick of the 'does it work' debate because it has been on-going for years and is dealt with reasonably and in great (even excessive) detail elsewhere.  Let's just assume it does because it seems to do so and develop it from there.

Most importantly, considering recent problems on the boards, I am speaking here for myself and what I feel is probably the general feeling.  If anyone disagrees, feel free to speak up...I won't presume to put words into anyone else's mouth, just state what I feel and perceive to be.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-01 16:22 ]

[Blake Hutchins]

Excellent points, Raven. Let me just add my perception that what we're talking about (to borrow your analogy) is laying down a common definition of what God is, so we can then move on to the discussion of how we experience , whether or not we agree or disagree with the original definition.

The FAQ should give us that common ground starting point so we can more easily move forward on testing and refining the model. As we refine the model, we may well end up revisiting and making adjustments to the model.

Best,

Blake

[Valamir]

To put a slightly different slant on it, I can definitely see Raven's frustration.

GNS is a foundation, a foundation that has been being under construction for a long time, and Raven et.al. are eager to start actually putting up the building.

However, how much sense would it make to start throwing up the building if the foundation is cracked?  

Right now, however, it seems that there isn't even agreement on what the foundation IS. Let alone agreement as to its soundness.  There are a couple people professing to have a complete and satisfactory understanding of it, but I have my suspicions that once the FAQ goes up WE ALL will be found to have gotten some piece of it wrong.

The FAQ will indeed give us a common starting point.  But to me that will be a common starting point for evaluating whether or not the foundation is sturdy enough to begin building on.  I don't view the FAQ as being some sort of certification that it is "up to code" and ready for construction to continue.

When Logan and Ron put up the FAQ, I hope they will make it clear at that time which view they have of it.  In other words:

When the FAQ is put up will it be put up as "this is the final definition carved into tablets of stone and all future discussion of the model will assume these items to be inviolate truth."

Or is it to be "Here at last is the current form of the model as it has been collected from a number of different locations so that everyone can see exactly what it says now.  From here we can begin to discuss its pros and cons from a level playing field where all have equal understanding of its components".

I think it will be VERY important for Ron and Logan to make the decision crystal clear to everyone, because I believe there are some differences of oppinion here.

I know that certain members (such as myself and Blake) are looking at it from the latter view.  I suspect that other members are convinced (or at least are hoping) it will be from the former.

Ron, Logan...what are your intentions in this regard.

[Logan]

On 2001-06-01 17:38, Valamir wrote:
Or is it to be "Here at last is the current form of the model as it has been collected from a number of different locations so that everyone can see exactly what it says now.  From here we can begin to discuss its pros and cons from a level playing field where all have equal understanding of its components".

This is a fair assessment of my position in developing the doc. I've made good progress in my presentation. I'll pass my work along to Ron shortly. I think when you see the finished document, you'll see what I've seen. You'll understand. In the meantime, please be patient.

Best,

Logan

[Ron Edwards]

Ralph,

Please see my post above from May 31, which expressly states my intentions.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

Since I just commented on this at rpg.net, I guess it's only right and proper to post something here.

A draft of the faq was e-mailed to Ron on Saturday. He looked it over Sunday. I continued to make adjustments and e-mailed him another draft this morning. I'm sure he won't thank me for that after printing out the previous version, but it was the right thing to do. When I have his inputs, I'll edit some more. He may edit some more. When we're both happy, we'll post it. I don't think that will take more than a few days. As I've said, after 2 years of debate, it's worth taking a few days to make sure we have our ducks in a row before releasing it to the public.

Best,

Logan

[Blake Hutchins]

No worries. You guys take all the time you need. I, for one, certainly appreciate the work. Thanks.

Best,

Blake

[Logan]

The doc is done. Ron and I put the finishing touches on GNS 101 and passed it along to the Forge's excellent webmaster. Soon, it will be posted. Then, the real fun can begin.

The doc answers many questions and should put some persistent issues to rest. No doubt, people will have thoughts and opinions about it. Those are welcome. Thanks for your patience and support.

Best,

Logan

[Mike Holmes]

Where will we be able to find it? Could you put a link in here when it is posted?

Mike Holmes

[Logan]

I'm pretty sure there will be links on the forum page and the front page. Believe me when I tell you, we want people to find it. We encourage people to read it. We're not going to hide it. :smile:

Best,

Logan