On Aug 15, 3:26 pm, psychohist <psychoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> If you or anyone else wanted to accept the model, but use different
> labels, you were free to start using your own labels, and to suggest
> that others do likewise.
What we were free to do was be ignored and labeled by the threefold
anyway. And that's what happened.
> If you or anyone else wanted to discuss different concepts, you were
> free to come up with your own model, and define your own concepts and
> suggest your own labels for them.
Many of the people involved didn't want models and labels of any kind,
I include myself in this group.
Besides, we already put this to the test. A fair number of models
started here in r.g.f.a, the old FAQ covered a good amount of them,
and I even a had a few myself although they were never judged worthly
of being included in the FAQ. How many of those were ever talked about
outside the post they were first put forth in?
One or two maybe, for an addition couple of threads at best? Anyone
here remember any of them?
But the threefold is remembered- with hatred by many. Why is that?
Likely not for the reasons you're giving here. Terms and such you
claim would apply to all of them- but only the threefold caused raging
flamewars. But then again, only the Threefold stole terms, excluded
addition, accused people of being too stupid to understand it, etc.
> To the extent that "rights" are involved, I'd say that the originator
> of a model will obviously be the first one to define the related
> terms.
And that is plainly false, the first one to apply labels and gets a
critical mass of like thinking people behind them gets to frame the
debate- and gets to cause the resulting problems if the model fails to
gain wide acceptance.
> I don't agree. In wargaming, there has always been a tension between
> the use of "simulation" to mean "having predictive power about the
> outcomes and flows of battles", the way Dunnigan tried to do things in
> his designs, and the using it to mean "including a greater level of
> detail", an approach that was taken to its limits in games like
> Tobruk.
And I disagree with this, seeing "greater level of detail" as but one
approach to the Simulation within that hobby and not a Simulation goal
itself. Also Tobruk was hardly the limit.
> At any rate, none of these things are criticisms of the concepts of
> the threefold model itself; they are only criticisms of the
> terminology that some people used for it.
Since the FAQ and it's surp****ters only defined the threefold by
terminology, it's selection thereof is rather critical I would think.
It controlled the terms and blocked the exchange of thoughts here. I
can't imagine any other criticism being needed.
Well, it was a horrid model besides.
> The tradeoff was between longer terms that would be clearer to
> newcomers to the group but more ***bersome in discussions between
> regulars, and shorter terms that regulars would immediately understand
> but would have to be explained to newcomers. Given the concepts would
> probably have to be explained to any interested newcomers anyway, I
> don't think choosing the latter was necessarily a mistake.
Given the number and quality of people we lost due to the threefold
flamewars, I disagree.
|
