Topic: Third split, and last
Started by: xiombarg
Started on: 5/29/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 5/29/2002 at 2:57pm, xiombarg wrote:
Third split, and last
Ron Edwards wrote: The real issue is whether this is a valid generalization. That's a very important concept: a VALID GENERALIZATION. Such a thing accounts for most of the variation we see in whatever phenomenon we're talking about. That's what it does, no more and no less.
Therefore, I believe Mike without qualm when he says, "Your description does not describe me." However, that fact is not relevant. Valid generalizations admit exceptions.
Great, Ron. Valid generalizations admit exceptions. But every anecdote people give of "fearless" Simulationist play is one more data point against you, and, frankly, I have yet to see any proof that your generalization is valid, since you don't seem to have any examples of Simulationists that are actually motivated by fear -- instead you have a lot of speculation by you and Paul. I mean no offense here, but I'm a touch surprised at you.
So, let's turn it around, Ron: IF this is a valid generalization, there have to be examples of Simulationist play like that you describe. And, frankly, I can't think of any. All examples of Simulationist play I can think of are of the "thought experiment" type already described, where no one cares how "good" the story is, they only care that it's an accurate simulation, which isn't motivated by fear.
So, can you give an example of a player you've encountered that fits this generalization? Because I submit they don't exist.
On 5/29/2002 at 3:03pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
All right, that does it.
Kirt, that thread is old and obsolete. Are you not looking at dates? Are you not seeing the other posts I've split from it?
Are people missing the entire point of this website?
I'm locking the old thread. I'm also considering locking the whole site for a day or two. You guys are really, really using bad judgment.
For the record, the topic is conceivably open. Any of these new "split" threads can be continued. I am not censoring the actual subject of discussion - but I do think that most people are not paying attention to the fact that the old thread is (a) very old and (b) no longer relevant (ie, I was convinced that my idea was invalid by other's arguments).
Best,
Ron
On 5/29/2002 at 3:11pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
Well, I apologize, Ron, if this thread is long and dead. I went away for the weekend and came back to find this thread at the top of the list, with lots of posts, and a "May 29" date on it. I'd never seen it before, so I thought it was a new thread, with all those posts having come over the weekend.
I admit I didn't look at the dates of the posts at the start of the thread, so it seems I was fooled by the recent posts. Again, I apologize, but it was an honest mistake.
On 5/29/2002 at 3:22pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
The other posts were exactly a year ago, as well, with April and May dates, leading to some confusion if you didn't look at the year. (I had an odd deja vu moment this morning seeing them.) All is forgiven, but Ron's right - anyone quoting that discussion as the current opinions of anyone on the Forge risks hurting everyone.
On 5/29/2002 at 3:26pm, AndyGuest wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
That's what I did - looked at the first post, saw 25 April and thought 'hmm new thread', never even noticed the 2001.
On 5/29/2002 at 3:30pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
AndyGuest wrote: That's what I did - looked at the first post, saw 25 April and thought 'hmm new thread', never even noticed the 2001.
Yeah, that explains a lot about my fuckup, too. Well, we're the Idiots of the Week, let's learn from the mistake and move on. ;-)
On 5/29/2002 at 3:43pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Third split, and last
Just to note (and lay blame), I'm locking these splits. This is just to prevent more bizarreness this morning, and not a punitive measure.