GNS/Creative Agenda Essay [long]

[Marco]

I received this in email. I'm not sure I agree with all of it--but I was asked my opinion on it. I asked permission to post it, and do so without immediate comment.

Performing a GNS/Creative Agenda Analysis
==================================

Assumptions/Start Conditions
--------------------------------------
These are necessary / expected for GNS analysis

There is a group engaging in actual play.

The players (GM, inclusive) produce observable phenomena
- They take actions (moving around, rolling dice, eating, etc.)
- They talk
- They produce observable body language
- They perform autonomic functions (breathing, blinking, sweating, etc.)

There is an analyst (who may or may not be one of the players) who observes the phenomena in the context of the Social Contract and performs the GNS/Creative Agenda Analysis

Specifically, this analysis determines, on a player basis, what GNS mode was prioritized during the play analyzed.

- Can players be categorized as preferring certain GNS modes based on a history of analysis that suggests they prioritize certain modes? Or has that been deprecated?

- Can individual, observable player decisions be categorized as belonging to certain GNS modes based on which mode led to the decision being made?

This analysis determines priority of GNS mode by classifying and weighting decisions as either

- Prioritizing winning (Gamist)
- Prioritizing exploration (Simulationist)
- Prioritizing address of Premise (Narrativist)

The weighting refers to the decisions that are unequal in importance. During an analyzed session, many decisions can be made; not all of them will carry the same weight or relevance to the analysis.

Address of Premise as a Priority
---------------------------------------

To be Narrativist, behavior of a player, at the table, during actual play, must address the premise of the game.

To categorize behavior as address of premise, the analyst must formulate an understanding of what the premise is.

There are several ways this can be done

- The premise might be explicit (built into the game via the rules)
- The premise might be discussed by the players and agreed upon
- The premise might be inferred by the analyst

Ultimately, however, the decision about what the premise is must be made by the analyst.

The techniques and conditions listed above are input into the analyst's decision, but even explicit premises and formal discussion are unreliable

- Just because a player claims to be addressing a specific premise does not, under GNS analysis, absolutely make his actions Narrativist in priority or necessarily address that premise.

- It is a tenet of GNS analysis that self-reported behavior is inherently unreliable. Players who claim they are addressing a specific premise (or any premise at all) may not be. The analyst is discouraged from "taking their word for it."

- Just because the game has a built in premise does not force player behavior to address it. It is possible to play Narrativist games and avoid taking actions that would be judged to address the built-in
premise. Such actions might be judged to address another premise entirely

Key Point/Rhetorical Question
-   It is a tenet of GNS that premise can, and often does, exist without being explicit(written down, vocalized, discussed, or otherwise made observable).
-   If so, where does it exist?

-Key Point
A game/session/part of a session cannot be said to have an objective premise. The premise must be deduced through observable clues by the analyst.

Conclusion
-Premise, in a GNS analysis exist only internally to the analyst

Test:
To test this conclusion consider the following: is it possible for two skilled analysts observing the same game to draw different conclusions about what the premise is?

Explicit premises and openly discussed premises might make divergent analysis *less likely* -- so to make this a valid test, consider a game in which there is no built-in premise and explicit no discussion of premise.

Under such circumstances, premise must be inferred by the analyst based on what he perceives--the observable behaviors of the players.

If it seems possible for two skilled analysts to observe the same behaviors and see two or more different moral questions being addressed through those behaviors, then one must conclude that premise
is necessarily subjective.

This author finds it possible for two trained GNS analysts to come to different conclusions about what the premise is at a given point in a given game.

Determining premise, therefore, must be considered to be a matter purely of analyst judgment.

Summary
-Premise is determined by the analyst based on observable phenomena
-Premise definition is internal to the analyst. There is no observable premise--only behaviors that can be inferred to suggest it
-Different analysts may have different ideas of what the premise is. This is natural, as premise is a matter of opinion
-Because premise exists only within the analyst's internal model (his mind) it may or may not be shared by the players, including those who are judged to make decisions that may or may not address it.

Classifying behavior as narrativist
------------------------------------------
Because premise exists completely within the mind of the analyst, the categorization of any given set of behaviors as addressing premise or not addressing premise, are likewise personal to the analyst.

Conclusion
- the categorization of any decision or set of decisions as Narrativist is nothing more than an expression of the analyst's  opinion
- any reference to an 'objective' or 'rigorous' GNS analysis would be a non-sequitor
- Adherents of GNS theory do not claim that GNS analysis is objective
- GNS adherents who are accepted to understand the model have stated that
  * GNS is "more an art than a science"
  * GNS is "unfinished"

Gamist and Simulationist Agendas
-------------------------------------------
Narrativist categorization is the most clearly subjective of the three because of its reliance on an unobservable, ultimately subjective key element (the premise)

Study of the other modes indicates them to be equally subjective.

Consider gamist

- For a decision to be classified as gamist by the analyst, the analyst must perceive it as prioritizing winning.
- The analyst must for a model in his mind of what "winning" is in this case.
- 'To win' is not observable. There is no formal, objective definition of winning in most games. Rather, there are a variety of possibilities (just as there are many possible premises). To illustrate, winning in a given situation could be defined as
  * Optimizing character power
  * Demonstrating player skill
  * Increasing respect from the group
  * Innumerable others
- To make a classification, the analyst must choose a sub-set of these and apply the analysis against them
- This decision is, inevitably, an internal choice about an unobservable (subjective) element
- At this point, any further analysis based on that decision becomes internal and subjective

Test: Would it be possible for two trained analysts to come to different conclusions about what decision or action a player might take to prioritize winning?

If it is possible to reach different conclusions, then is it possible for a trained analyst to disagree with another trained analyst about whether a decision prioritized winning or not?

Because, for any given analysis, a specific and relevant definition of 'winning' exists only in the mind of the analyst. "Winning" is not observable. It is not objective. Because Winning is personal, an analysis that classifies a decision as prioritizing winning is a matter of opinion.

Since two people (trained in the same theory) can hold different opinions, one must conclude that two analysts with different internal ideas about 'what winning is' in a given case could disagree.

One must conclude that categorizing behavior/decisions as prioritizing Gamist ideas is simply a matter of opinion on the analyst's part

I leave Simulationist as an exercise to the reader

Applying GNS analysis
-----------------------------
What does one do with a GNS analysis? What insight does it provide?

Because of the highly personal and subjective nature of GNS analysis, it provides a diagnostic tool into the thought processes, opinions, and viewpoints of the analyst.

The analyst is providing a detailed map of how he perceives

- The behavior of the players
- The social contract
- The implications of decisions and how they might be seen to prioritize a certain GNS mode
- His understanding of GNS theory

Does GNS tell you about the internal states (likes, wants, preferences) of the players?
- No. It may tell you about the analyst's understanding of these things. Because GNS deals only with observable behavior, it can only comment on
  1) What the players did and
  2) How the analyst perceived these things

Does GNS tell you how to improve your game?
- It may. Under the condition that the analyst is a player, it may give insight into his interpretation of game events and conflicts.

How GNS differs from rigorous analytical methodologies
==========================================
GNS provides no quantitative elements

Even qualitative methodologies can be rigorous if

1) There is some way to falsify them (to test their conclusions)

- The inability to perform GNS analysis post-mortem makes it impossible to validate GNS analysis via consensus. This is a limiting feature that is built into the model and explicitly makes it non-falsifiable.
2) There are a well agreed upon, clearly articulated set of techniques that can be used to standardize analysis

GNS provides neither of these

GNS can best be understood as a self-help technique. If you are experiencing problems gaming, performing a GNS analysis on your group may assist you in understanding your own attitudes and perceptions toward events you have observed.

Does Creative Agenda exist independently of analysis?
========================================
Does Creative Agenda have an existence, even if no one analyzes it?

Creative agenda analysis relies on observable phenomena, but does the Creative Agenda, itself, exist even if it is not observed?

To answer this, one must ask, "Where does it exist?"

Creative Agenda has two components

-   The observable behaviors of the players
-   The meaning/understanding of those behaviors as they prioritize an agenda

The observable behaviors objectively exist and can be recorded, measured and analyzed.

The meaning/understanding of those behaviors is physical or recordable. It can not be observed. Therefore it must exist only in someone's mind.

Who's mind?

To probe this consider one of numerous examples of performing a GNS Analysis of a decision:

A player decides to have his character join a battle – a decision that prioritizes winning.

Clearly, the decision to join battle is communicated by the player to the group: "My guy hits him." The behavior (speaking) is objective and observable.

The understanding that this act prioritizes winning, however is not observable.

-   The player may claim that he is prioritizing winning; this is considered insufficient evidence under GNS methodology
-   There may be reactions (subtle, overt, etc.) from the group to the decision. These observable phenomena are more information but they do not create an objective entity that is a prioritization
-   Ultimately the totality of observable information must be analyzed to create an understanding of what is prioritized by the decision and reinforced by the group

To repeat:
Behavior is observable. The understanding that it supports, discourages, or otherwise addresses a GNS agenda is opinion held by the analyst.

So where does the totality of Creative Agenda exist?

In the mind of the analyst.

Summary:
-   Creative agenda is composed of both behaviors and their meaning – what they prioritize
-   Because GNS modes are not observable, there is no way to objectively identify them
-   The "unobservable" part of a GNS mode exists in the analyst's head

Key Point:
-   Players may have likes, wants, priorities, desires, etc.
-   These are mental states that are not addressed by Creative Agenda or GNS analysis
-   There is no indication that the analyst's understanding of which creative agenda is prioritized matches the understanding of another analyst or of the players being observed
-   Therefore, GNS analysis provides insight into the analyst's understanding and the analyst's preferences—not the player's

Conclusion
Creative Agenda can only be understood as an opinion held by an observer about objective behavior.

Does it exist?

Yes—but not objectively in any sort of "shared space." Creative Agenda is not inherently part of inter-group communication. It is a personal understanding of the behavior that is developed by the analyst through GNS/Creative Agenda analysis

[Paul Czege]

Meh. You got that from a deconstructionist. "All meaning is subjective in the mind of the reader."

Real communication is characterized by participants continually checking through various means to see that recipients are accurately getting the intended message. Creative Agenda is that kind of active endeavor. When you're a participant, it is simply impossible to not get the message. If it were, there wouldn't be so damn many folk remedies for unsatisfying play.

Paul

[Ian Charvill]

There are certain parts of the analysis that may have some validity - such as the question of whether GNS is falsifiable - but on the whole the article is painfully at odds with reality.

If you can answer yes to the following question then GNS conflict is apparant and appreciable:

Have you ever been in a group where one player has been so intent on being the guy with the biggest gun and another has been so intent on their character's romantic subplot that they spoiled each other's fun?

If the answer to this is yes, how could anyone give the essay's conclusion a moments credulity?

Creative Agenda can only be understood as an opinion held by an observer about objective behavior.

[Matt Snyder]

If it seems possible for two skilled analysts to observe the same behaviors and see two or more different moral questions being addressed through those behaviors, then one must conclude that premise is necessarily subjective.

Or that one analyst got it right, objectively, and that the other got it wrong. Or both got it wrong, objectively. This bogus conclusion does not support either possibility (both of which I think are quite possible, even for "skilled" analysts). This is why Raven (and I) has said this is more art than science. We did not say it was more art than science because it was subjective. Just that it may be hard to be an analyst, and that analysts will get it wrong, inevitably.

Determining premise, therefore, must be considered to be a matter purely of analyst judgment.

Of course, but it doesn't mean the matter is so subjective that "any old analyzed premise will do."

Summary
-Premise is determined by the analyst based on observable phenomena
-Premise definition is internal to the analyst. There is no observable premise--only behaviors that can be inferred to suggest it
-Different analysts may have different ideas of what the premise is. This is natural, as premise is a matter of opinion
-Because premise exists only within the analyst's internal model (his mind) it may or may not be shared by the players, including those who are judged to make decisions that may or may not address it.

I heartily disagree with the second, third and fourth points of this summary. Human fallibility (of the analysts, however proficient) can explain different analysts' stated premises as easily as can subjectivity.

As I've read on, because I disagree with this conclusion and summary, I strongly disagree with many of the ensuing points (Classifying behavior as narrativist, etc.)

Marco, I'm confused. Is this essay your own, or did someone else write this? It seems to mirror your own thoughts some, but I'm not clear who's espousing this view. If they remain anonymous, so be it. No biggie.

Because the three modes of G, N, and S are equivalent on the level of creaetive agenda, and because this author defines Adressing Premise and narrativist behavior as inately subjective, are Gamist and Simulationist similarly subjective? That seems the only logical conclusion to me (and, clearly, I disagree that they are subjective).

So, Marco, are you (or the author of this essay -- again, I'm not sure who that is) saying that G, N, and S distinctions are always subjective by definition?

I will put my neck on the line and state that, as an adherent of GNS ideas, such behaviors are, indeed, objective. They may not be algebraic, but they are not purely a matter of opinion. They are a matter of interpretation and evaluation, which can easily be misapplied. Hence, uncertainty, but not subjectivity.

Saying that GNS is "More art than science" is emphatically NOT saying that GNS is, therefore, a matter of opinion. This conclusion does not logically follow for reasons I have already stated -- namely, that it's just as plausible that the matter is objective but analysis is faulty due to human error.

- 'To win' is not observable. There is no formal, objective definition of winning in most games. Rather, there are a variety of possibilities (just as there are many possible premises). To illustrate, winning in a given situation could be defined as
  * Optimizing character power
  * Demonstrating player skill
  * Increasing respect from the group
  * Innumerable others

What gamist games have you, the author, been playing or reading? Many gamist games have pretty clear indicators of what winning is (I think Rune does, for example). That the games are not clear is a problem with those games being, well, unclear to their players, not with the "subjectivity" of Gamism.

More importantly, many groups of actual people have clear "winning" objectives. These may be confounded because players within one group do not agree. But, we can imagine a group in which every member agreess, even non-verbally, on what the winning objective in a gamist game is. Once those are achieved, in play, the group has objectively completed its Gamist goals in play. Again, for these reasons, I heartily disagree that this is a subjective matter.

Test: Would it be possible for two trained analysts to come to different conclusions about what decision or action a player might take to prioritize winning?

Sure. Again, they can both be wrong. One could be objectively right, the other objectively wrong.

Because, for any given analysis, a specific and relevant definition of 'winning' exists only in the mind of the analyst. "Winning" is not observable. It is not objective. Because Winning is personal, an analysis that classifies a decision as prioritizing winning is a matter of opinion.

Winning is not objective?!? That's crazy. Winning absolutely does not exist "only in the mind of the analyst." The very notion is absurd, by definition. No one would ever win. If the analysts CAN be the players, then all they have to do is enter "subjective" mode. "I won." "No, not in my mind you didn't." "I did." "Didn't." Blah.

Since two people (trained in the same theory) can hold different opinions, one must conclude that two analysts with different internal ideas about 'what winning is' in a given case could disagree.

No, one must not conclude that. One can conclude that, but, again, one can conclude other possiblities.

1) There is some way to falsify them (to test their conclusions)

- The inability to perform GNS analysis post-mortem makes it impossible to validate GNS analysis via consensus. This is a limiting feature that is built into the model and explicitly makes it non-falsifiable.

What? No, really, I just have no idea what this means. Can this author explain?

2) There are a well agreed upon, clearly articulated set of techniques that can be used to standardize analysis

GNS provides neither of these

So what? I don't think it ever claimed to provide these, but we talk about them all the time on the Forge. That doesn't invalidate the model. It means that people, like this author seems to, may have a hard time being an analyst.

Behavior is observable. The understanding that it supports, discourages, or otherwise addresses a GNS agenda is opinion held by the analyst.

So where does the totality of Creative Agenda exist?

In the mind of the analyst.

No, it is not an "opinion." It is a judgment based on observable facts. There is, indeed, a "wrong" answer to the question of "What is this group's Creative Agenda?"

In the case of pure "opinion" no one is either right or wrong. They just have personal "opinions" that are unprovable by logic.

Creative Agenda exists, whether or not the analysts observed it and analyzed it correctly, or whether they even observed it at all!

Conclusion
Creative Agenda can only be understood as an opinion held by an observer about objective behavior.

Does it exist?

Yes—but not objectively in any sort of "shared space." Creative Agenda is not inherently part of inter-group communication. It is a personal understanding of the behavior that is developed by the analyst through GNS/Creative Agenda analysis

I find this a totally bogus and ill-founded conclusion based on a faulty logic that does not consider equiavalent, plausible conclusions at every point in this essay.

[Valamir]

What Paul said.  

"I cannot conclusively prove an answer to every niggling question someone hypothetically might want to ask, therefore the theory is non rigorous and of limited value"

Baloney.

I have yet to encounter a field of thought where every aspect was explainable, predictable, or understandable.  Social interaction is not Newtonian Physics or Euclidian Geometry.

Maybe its just the fact that I am a highly trained and highly proficient member of the investment community, but I see, develop, and work with theories and models every day that a) do not get every detail right, b) are not expected to get every detail right, and c) are still phenomenally usefull tools without which I'd be much worse off.

People win nobel prizes for the stuff I look at and use...and it sure as heck wouldn't meet the kind of criteria for decisive, irrefutable, correctness being assumed to be necessary here.


But if one wants a more concrete answer than Baloney, I could go through this line by line and point out the NUMEROUS logical fallacies and non sequitors of the above.

Instead I'll point out just one to demonstrate they are there as I have limited interest in turning this into a long post.

To be Narrativist, behavior of a player, at the table, during actual play, must address the premise of the game.

To categorize behavior as address of premise, the analyst must formulate an understanding of what the premise is.

How does this second statement follow?  Why must an outside analyst be able to understand what the premise is?  Who said that was necessary?  The model sure didn't.  I don't recall Ron ever suggesting it was.  If someone wants to suggest that, to be valid, a premise must be identifiable and understandable by some outside observer they'd better come up with a heck of a reason to justify that.  Trying to slip it in as a premise of the arguement simply so it can be shot down is pure straw man arguement.

[John Kim]

Well, as usual, deconstructionism is controversial.  

To me, the essay simply doesn't say anything useful.  Even if it is true (and I'm not saying it is), this goes nowhere unless the author (or someone) can come up with what GNS analysis means about the analyzer.  To the extent that deconstruction is useful at all, it needs to show what biases are in constructive analyses.  (i.e. What is the GNS analyzer really finding, if not an objective truth?)  As it stands this is simply an assertion with no substance.  

That said, it seems possible that this approach could be directed somewhere useful.  Is there something to be learned in looking at the pattern of how an analyzer finds GNS modes?    

If you can answer yes to the following question then GNS conflict is apparant and appreciable:

Have you ever been in a group where one player has been so intent on being the guy with the biggest gun and another has been so intent on their character's romantic subplot that they spoiled each other's fun?

If the answer to this is yes, how could anyone give the essay's conclusion a moments credulity?  

Here I disagree.  Style clashes can exist without proving the specific theory of GNS.  There are other models such as the rgfa Threefold Model or for that matter older models like Blacow's Fourfold or Robin Law's sixfold variant.  GNS isn't really a universal theory of style clash, either, in that players can easily clash violently within a given GNS mode.  GNS is a specific theory -- not just a bland statement of "style clash exists".  As such I don't think it is beyond question at all.

[Mike Holmes]

I think what the deconstruction angles for, especially in it's treatment of Narrativism is to show a bias based on a preference for narrativism. That is, if "adherents of GNS" have set it up so that they can call anything they like Narrativism, and anything they don't like Simulationism, then it's solely a tool for advancing their agenda.

And while I think that does accurately describe the agenda of the progenitor of the theory, the logic doesn't in any way prove that the theory is unsound (mostly due to the illogic within it). IOW, I've just deconstructed the above deconstruction to prove that the poster has a bias against those with a Narrativism bias.

Mike

[Marco]

To be Narrativist, behavior of a player, at the table, during actual play, must address the premise of the game.

To categorize behavior as address of premise, the analyst must formulate an understanding of what the premise is.

How does this second statement follow?  Why must an outside analyst be able to understand what the premise is?  Who said that was necessary?  The model sure didn't.  I don't recall Ron ever suggesting it was.  If someone wants to suggest that, to be valid, a premise must be identifiable and understandable by some outside observer they'd better come up with a heck of a reason to justify that.  Trying to slip it in as a premise of the arguement simply so it can be shot down is pure straw man arguement.

I don't have too much to add to this save to note the following.

1. Ralph adds the term "outside analyst" to the essay's argument. It's not in there. Netiher is external--that I can see. The essay actually specifies these people are probably players in the game.

2. He proceeds shoots it down (Ron never required that).

3. He includes a paragraph about why a straw-man argument isn't valid.

-Marco
[ It's possible Ralph means "outside" as in "other than in the Narrativist's player's head"--but I kinda doubt that. ]

[Valamir]

Ummm, Marco.  The essay opens with:

There is an analyst (who may or may not be one of the players) who observes the phenomena

The essay clearly allows for the possibility of the "analyst" being a "non player".  The essay then goes on at length to say what the analyst must be able to do.  Since the essay does not distinguish between player analyst and non player (outside) analyst anywhere else, it clearly presumes that everything that is said about the analyst must apply equally to either.

Therefor in the post above where the essay reads that the analyst must be able to formulate an understanding of the premise, this must be taken to include an analyst who is not a player (i.e. an outsider).  At which point I make the arguement that this is nonsense and an invention of the essayist and not of the model.  There is absolutely nothing in the model that says if I am sitting in on your game and you are playing narrativist that I need to be able to tell the Premise you're addressing.  

Your post above implies that I added words or spin or twisted what the essay said.  I did not.  You are in error to think so.  I am rather disappointed by that.

As I said this item is simply one of many places where the logic of the essay falls apart and proves itself to be an arguement build on a foundation of sand.

[Andrew Martin]

Please note that I'm not putting any one down, nor am I being nasty! I apologise in advance if you feel offended by this post.

Here's a page from the US government on autism:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/autism.cfm

And here's a relevant quote:

To compound the problem, people with autism have problems seeing things from another person's perspective. Most 5-year-olds understand that other people have different information, feelings, and goals than they have. A person with autism may lack such understanding. This inability leaves them unable to predict or understand other people's actions.

The essay writer's essay reminds me of a person with slight or partial autism who has difficulty understanding or deducing the internal emotional state of other people. The writer is looking at gross, "obvious" actions and trying to work out internal state from that.

Please note: This post is not intended to put any one down or "dis" anyone! Not even the essay writer! It's only intent is to point out this problem that some adults have and how it can hinder their lives and their interactions with other. These interactions can include RPGs. Please note that partial autism in adults is often undiagnosed. Famous people with partial or full autism include Bill Gates, and Temple Grandin.

[Ian Charvill]

If you can answer yes to the following question then GNS conflict is apparant and appreciable:

Have you ever been in a group where one player has been so intent on being the guy with the biggest gun and another has been so intent on their character's romantic subplot that they spoiled each other's fun?

If the answer to this is yes, how could anyone give the essay's conclusion a moments credulity?  

Here I disagree.  Style clashes can exist without proving the specific theory of GNS.  There are other models such as the rgfa Threefold Model or for that matter older models like Blacow's Fourfold or Robin Law's sixfold variant.  GNS isn't really a universal theory of style clash, either, in that players can easily clash violently within a given GNS mode.  GNS is a specific theory -- not just a bland statement of "style clash exists".  As such I don't think it is beyond question at all.

Here I have to acceed the point.  The first line should have read Creative Agenda where I wrote GNS.  You're right, GNS is just one way of classifying Creative Agenda.  I don't think the essay does anything substantive to forward the argument that GNS is wrong.

[Marco]

Ummm, Marco.  The essay opens with:

There is an analyst (who may or may not be one of the players) who observes the phenomena

As you will, Ralph.

Is your contention that someone in the room, watching the gaming constitutes being "outside?"

So the "observable behavior" that comprises a GNS mode is something that can only be judged by actually being a player or GM, not someone watching.

Wow.
-Marco

[Valamir]

Marco, I have no interest whatsoever in debating my use of the word "outsider" with you.  I am not about to spend pages and pages of posts quibbling over indvidual word choice, or a turn of phrase and completely diverting from the point.

The word observer in the above should be taken to be synonomous with "non player" and if you're unwilling to do that <shrug>.  I didn't add anything to the essay.  I simply pointed out how a claim made by the essay was pure fiction.  That claim being that a non player must be able to identify the premise of the game, or else the model doesn't work.  That is one of many places where the essay doesn't fly.

If you want to discuss that point, I'm happy to do so.  If you want to diddle around over a word that you know full well what it means in order to avoid discussing that point, I'm not interested.

So the "observable behavior" that comprises a GNS mode is something that can only be judged by actually being a player or GM, not someone watching.

Further, this is the exact kind of "loosy goosy" nonsense that is trying to pass for a logical arguement in the entire above essay.  I did not say anything of the kind.  The essay goes to great lengths to try and say what an analyst (player or otherwise) should be able to tell and clearly states that such an analyst could be a non player.  I was pointing out that that entire section in its entirety was a straw man invention of the essayist.

No where did I make any claim whatsoever about what the model says.  Only that it doesn't say what the essay is trying to claim it says.  Nice try.  But I'm not buying that either.

This essay was presented in the form of a logical arguement.

There are only 2 reasons to ever format a discussion in the form of a logical arguement.

1) because one is truly interested in debate and open dialog and putting ones case out in the open in full detail.  In such an effort it is important that the rules of logical arguement are followed so that every one is on the same page.

2) when the author is really jut ranting and attempting to give a veneer of intellectual thought to what is essentially just a rant.  Rants are fine and dandy when they're identified as such.  But trying to pass a rant off as a legitimate arguement is not.


If this essay is trying to be number 1, its a pretty poorly written piece: full of non sequitors, false claims, and unsupported premii.

[Marco]

Well, I'm still curious--and I'll leave the o-word out of the question for ya:

Can a non-player observer, at the table of a real game, make a GNS determination?

-Marco

[Walt Freitag]

Can a non-player observer, at the table of a real game, make a GNS determination?

My answer is, "Yes, of course, and in most cases, given sufficient play to observe, with very little difficulty."

Is this controversial? Do you have a refutation in mind?

- Walt

[EDITED to remove an additional question, which was previously edited in immediately after posting, but which Marco might not have seen before posting his reply. The additional question was "Did Ralph suggest otherwise?"]