And it was going so well ...

[GB Steve]

A big step in my time at the Forge today, Ron and I agreed on something. I'm starting to think that many of the problems I've had here are down to the vocab.

Sure GNS has lots of it, but I was getting on top of that.

Sure Ron translated something I said earlier into theory-speak, meaning that I didn't understand what I'd said anymore.

But it turns out that there's a whole new layer of jargon I don't understand at all.

Lumpley Principle? Beeg Horseshoe? It's sounds like something out of a 50's SF movie:

"But Professor, the ship'll never fly, it contravenes the Lumpley Principle"
"Don't worry, Flash, the Beeg Horseshoe actually bends GNS to work around that problem"

That was humour by the way.

So back to my point, which is, would it be possible to have a jargon thread? Perhaps a Ron write only thread where accepted Jargon is referenced so the next time I stay away for 3 months I can understand what anyone is saying.

Cheers,
Steve

[Gordon C. Landis]

The last two essays from Ron (on Sim and Gamist play) have glossaries - maybe those can be put in a sticky thread in Theory or something?

Of course, the ideal would be that we all stop using jargon and communicate clearly in words of two or fewer syllables - but that is apparently not how things actually work.  Until someone rewrites the rules of effective human interaction to actually be . . . effective, maybe that'd help.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Sorry man,

I was enjoying the agreement myself.

On the plus side, as far as I can tell, most of the positive input on that thread can just skip the jargon-ridden sections.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Of course, the ideal would be that we all stop using jargon and communicate clearly in words of two or fewer syllables....

Sorry, Gordon; it actually doesn't work better that way.

My undergraduate work is in theology; my graduate work is in law. Those two fields are rife with jargon--what in the one is referred to as technical language and in the other as terms of art. They both need it.

After all, when I say "eschatology", those who are reasonably informed in the theological arena know that I mean "theories and events related to the end of the world and the return of Christ"; when I say "soteriology" it is understood to mean "related to the nature or process of salvation". The use of the single word is more concise and clearer than using the definition every time I want the word.

So, too, in law, if I write "joint in the entireties" in an agreement, I've probably saved myself two pages of explanation of exactly what rights each co-owner of a property has, because people who know understand what that means.

If every time someone wanted to make casual reference to the idea that for every game-in-play there is a system, which is more than the rules in the book but less than the entire social contract, by which the events in the shared imagined space are determined, they had to write all that, such discussions would be at least stilted if not crippled. That we can just write, "The Lumpley Principle" to convey this makes our posts both shorter and clearer, to those who know the term.

Whenever jargon develops, there are always calls to create a place for such terminology to be presented and defined, and it always has trouble. Just a couple weeks ago someone proposed "lasersharking" as a term to describe a certain approach to scenario design, and there was a lot of support for it until some insightful members demonstrated that it was impossible to clearly define and thus ultimately nearly useless (although I still think the term has value, and will be borrowing it for an upcoming Game Ideas Unlimited piece, with proper credit to Jack). What goes into it? What gets left out? "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less," Humpty said to Alice; jargon is agreeing in small groups that a word has meaning that would not necessarily be recognized by those who have not followed its development.

Here, I'd say if you're looking for the meaning of a word, do a forum search on it and choose the oldest thread first, to see if that's where it originates. That should get you some idea of what it means pretty quickly.

The alternative is for all of us who try to use the jargon to make it easier to be saddled with linking every such word to the thread which defines it. I have enough trouble finding my own definitive posts when I want them.

--M. J. Young

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi MJ,

Um, yeah - jargon is used for a reason.  I meant only to imply "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need it?"  

But - barring a rewrite of reality (for which I'm available for consultation, if you hear of someone starting up that project), we'll have to live with using the tools we have.  Like jargon.

Gordon

[Jack Spencer Jr]

For what it's worth, Steve, I try to define jargon when I use it. Partially for the new people who are not familiar with it but mostly to make sure that either I understand the definition of the term and that everyone who reads understands my take on the defintion. It saves on exchanges like this:

"DICE ARE COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE LUMPLEY PRINCIPLE!!!!"

"No they aren't, Jack, you twink."

P.S. MJ, if you wish to give credit, give it to Austin Powers. A three-movie running joke is a good running joke. [/quote]

[GB Steve]

"But Professor, the ship'll never fly, it contravenes the Lumpley Principle"
"Don't worry, Flash, the Beeg Horseshoe actually bends GNS to work around that problem"

Well, it turns out that the Beeg Horseshoe does bend GNS to work around a problem. I even contributed to the thread on it's first mention, but that was 2 years ago!

And the Lumpley principle, that System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play, seems to be a definition rather than a principle.

Still the search for the oldest thread idea helped with the initial occurence of the vocab but doesn't show what current thinking is. And of course, to keep this up to date would be a big task.

Thanks.