|
You keep ignoring my points, Aristotle, but you won't distract me with insults. Let us go over this one more time. I have bolded the points which I believe you are claiming. The other points follow on logically. Please tell me at which point you disagree:
1) You believe that "RPI" should be used to represent its literal meaning, rather than being a label to refer to a specific style of mud. In other words, you feel that the label "RPI" should be usable by any mud that is "role-playing intensive".
2) RP stands for "role-playing". And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".
3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character. That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player. Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.
4) You feel that the term RPI shouldn't have to adhere to strict requirements - that any mud which involves intensive roleplaying should be able to use call themselves an RPI.
5) The literal meaning of "intensive" is subjective. Therefore if we're using literal meanings, any RP mud could claim to be an RPI on the basis that they feel the role-playing in their mud is "intensive".
6) As specified by point 3, going by literal meanings all muds are RP muds. And as specified by point 5, going by literal meanings any RP muds can quite legitimately claim to be an RPI mud. Therefore, going by literal meanings, all muds can be classified as RPI muds.
Which point do you disagree with, and why?
|