thread: 2012-11-15 : Positioning: the Big Model vs Emily, reconciled

On 2012-11-15, Vincent wrote:

A couple of days ago I was in a pretty heated conversation about whether I'm opportunistically and self-servingly bashing the Forge. That accusation's off-topic for this thread and I'll treat it severely.

However, if you'd like to register your objection to the way I've characterized the Big Model here, I understand, and I offer the marginalia of this comment as the appropriate place for it.

Keep it brief. Keep it to this comment's marginalia.



This makes VB go "Parochial?!"
I'm offended. I can't believe I turned into you. Do you know how much work, love, and e-blood I put into the Big Model, and now it's "parochial"? Go to hell. Signed, VB from the past.

This makes GcL go "DISCUSSION about the Big Model"
has always been too simplistic, I'd say. When discussion did pres (into, say, solo play), the Big Model often proved entirely applicable. But I'd not claim that for all areas, nor that it actually got developed in all areas that it could/should have been.

This makes R go "I am unhealthily curious"
what kind of circle was it where you run into accusations of that sort. I know it's morbid and base of me.

This makes Moreno go "One can't copy-and-paste your definition..."
...without you changing it right after that! Stand still a little, I don't want to copy and paste new definitions over the same page every three months... Apart from the name-calling of old BM (I empathize with poor VB from the past), I don't have any issue with this post. I, too, cringe sometimes when I find some definitions in the Big Model that still take as a given a single character with a single GM, and this seems a very nice way to generalize and improve the definition. Are you going to do the same for the other components or are you only interested in talking about position at this time? Because I would like to upgrade the definitions in the wiki, but not before talking about it in the adept press forum, and that not before you conclude the series of posts here.

This makes TMC go "The Forge was a good start. Time to upgrade."
We can start from the Forge and expand from there. A lot has changed since Ron closed the GNS forum.

This makes GcL go "and just for the record"
Good on you for considering the possibility, I guess, but "Vincent" and "self-serving, opportunistic bashing" are not things I can hold simultaneously in my head.

This makes GcL go "I can't believe I let this slide!"
GNS is about how the GM treats characters? If ONLY. Man, that would have been EASY to understand compared to the "underlying explanation for doing this shite at all" that I was always wrestling with... (I was re-reading, and this was distracting me. So go away, not-currently-meaningful complaint!)

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":