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

On 2012-11-16, Tablesaw wrote:

So "positioning" can be boken down into axes like "fictional positioning," "cue/currency positioning," and "interpersonal positioning." It might be possible to think about "gamer types" in terms of what kind of positioning is most comfortable for a player.

I feel like there's still a need for a corollary term that describes position from the point of view of an element (particularly, but perhaps not exclusively, a fictional element); that is, the total set of all legitimate moves that any player can make re a given element. This would be something like "passive position" (moves that can be done to a thing) instead of "active position" (moves that a player can do).

Because I usually think of fictional positioning in terms of modifying the things that can be done to an element, rather than modifying the things that other players can do (including to that element). They are one and the same, of course, but it's not an intuitive frame of reference for me.


This makes R go "It sure is possible to think about 'gamer types' in any terms"
but I can't think of any actual, non-theoretical advantage to be gained from typecasting real human beings.

This makes BL go "I agree w/ R."
I think getting away from types of people is a good idea.

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

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