• in addition to video of live events and content direct from the game, the film includes at least one in-character interview

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
• the nature of the copyrighted work
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

2 more annotations...

• not as just the future of entertainment, but as the expansion of a standard method of storytelling that game designers have been using for decades
• Role-playing games let players pick characters with multiple traits, such as strength, health and special skills, and work together to achieve story-driven goals
• The ultimate outcome depends on the choices players make along the way
• the problem isn’t giving players choices: It’s deciding what happens next
• there’s a very good reason for these constraints
• An academically published game, “Façade,” is considered important not just for showing that scholarly games can be fun to play, but also demonstrating that academic concepts of branching narrative and story can create meaningful play
• a strong overlap with virtual reality, offering immersive escapism, which is, in my experience, a key goal of interactivity

5 more annotations...

• Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion
• assumes a cause for an event where there is no evidence that one exists
• assumes a proposition to be true simply because there is no evidence proving that it is not
• A general claim may sometimes be made about a category of things. When faced with evidence challenging that claim, rather than accepting or rejecting the evidence, such an argument counters the challenge by arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership into that category
• speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences of accepting or rejecting it
• Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument
• assumes a cause for an event where there is no evidence that one exists
• discrediting an argument for proposing an idea that is shared by some socially demonized individual or group
• assumes a proposition to be true simply because there is no evidence proving that it is not
• when an argument is either devalued or defended solely because of its history
• imagining a scary future that would be of their making if some proposition were accepted
• Appeal to Fear
• Hasty Generalization
• Straw Man
• Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
• Appeal to Ignorance
• Not a Cause for a Cause
• No True Scotsman
• Arguing from consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences of accepting or rejecting it
• A general claim may sometimes be made about a category of things. When faced with evidence challenging that claim, rather than accepting or rejecting the evidence, such an argument counters the challenge by arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership into that category
• An appeal to authority is an appeal to one's sense of modesty [Engel], which is to say, an appeal to the feeling that others are more knowledgeable
• Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument is what is meant by “putting up a straw man.”
• discrediting an argument for proposing an idea that is shared by some socially demonized individual or group
• A false dilemma is an argument that presents a set of two possible categories and assumes that everything in the scope of that which is being discussed must be an element of that set
• Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion
• imagining a scary future that would be of their making if some proposition were accepted
• assumes a proposition to be true simply because there is no evidence proving that it is not
• attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are undesirable
• generalizes from a sample that is either too small or too special to be representative of a population
• Composition is inferring that a whole must have a particular attribute because its parts happen to have that attribute
• one of four types of arguments known as begging the question, [Damer] where one implicitly or explicitly assumes the conclusion in one or more of the premisses
• countering a charge with a charge, rather than addressing the issue being raised, with the intention of diverting attention away from the original argument
• assumes a cause for an event where there is no evidence that one exists
• speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences of accepting or rejecting it
• an appeal to one's sense of modesty [Engel], which is to say, an appeal to the feeling that others are more knowledgeable
• Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument
• when one generalizes from a sample that is either too small or too special to be representative of a population
• changing the meaning of a word during the course of an argument and using the different meanings
• plays on the fears of an audience by imagining a scary future that would be of their making if some proposition were accepted
• presents a set of two possible categories and assumes that everything in the scope of that which is being discussed must be an element of that set
• when one generalizes from a sample that is either too small or too special to be representative
• countering a charge with a charge, rather than addressing the issue being raised
• false dilemma is an argument that presents a set of two possible categories and assumes that everything in the scope of that which is being discussed must be an element of that set
• arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are undesirable
• uses the fact that a sizable number of people, or perhaps even a majority, believe in something as evidence that it must therefore be true
• appeal to authority
• attacks a person's character rather than what he or she is saying
• Arguing from consequences
• inferring that a whole must have a particular attribute because its parts happen to have that attribute
• when an argument is either devalued or defended solely because of its history
• absence of evidence is taken to mean evidence of absence
• where one implicitly or explicitly assumes the conclusion in one or more of the premisses
• persuasion is a function of not only logic, but other things as well
• arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership into that category
• Since persuasion is a function of not only logic, but other things as well, it is helpful to be cognizant of those things. Rhetoric likely tops the list, and precepts such as the principle of parsimony come to mind, as do concepts such as the “burden of proof” and where it lies<!-- and linguistic traps such as the unrestrained use of absolute terms – <i>all, none, always, never</i> and so on-->.
• Experts do not have the characteristic of producing absolute truth
• assumes that all transitions are inevitable, all the while providing no evidence in support of that
• such arguments rely on rhetoric, threats or outright lies
• it does not follow, that a quality which attaches to an effect is transferable to the cause
• there isn't a narrative that ties them together; they are discrete scenes
• The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
• The burden-of-proof always lies with the person making a claim
• two specific types: ‘after this, therefore because of this’ and ‘with this, therefore because of this.’
• appeals to relevant authority can tell us which things are likely to be true
• one must ask what is more likely and what is less likely based on evidence from past observations
• the rules of logic are not laws of the natural world nor do they constitute all of human reasoning
• The overwhelming majority of the things that we believe in, such as atoms and the solar system, are on reliable authority, as are all historical statements
• Reading about things that one should not do is actually a useful learning experience
• Division, conversely, is inferring that a part must have some attribute because the whole to which it belongs happens to have that attribute
• Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that takes the following form:
  If A then C, C; hence A.
• a formal fallacy that takes the following form:
  If A then C, C; hence A.
• “Logic no more explains how we think than grammar explains how we speak” [Minsky]
• Logic does not generate new truths, but allows one to verify the consistency and coherence of existing chains of thought
• assuming that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true, which in reality need not be the case
• It is fallacious to form a belief when the appeal is to an authority who is not an expert
• such arguments are fallacious only when they deal with propositions with objective truth values, and not when they deal with decisions or policies

74 more annotations...