Skip to content

Procedural rhetoric

Persuasion through rule-governed processes and simulations that make claims by modeling how a system works.

Version
v1 · 2026-09-08 · History
Domain-specific #
6209
Origin domain
game and media studies
Subdomain
game and media studies
Aliases
Simulation rhetoric

Core Idea

Rules express an argument only through player interpretation and context, procedural rhetoric is not every procedure or game mechanic and verbal visual and procedural modes can coexist without one reducing to another. A designed rule system permits and forbids actions, maps choices to consequences and lets users enact a model; the experienced gap between modeled rules and alternatives supports an argument about causality values or institutions. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

Scope of Application

Procedural rhetoric belongs to game and media studies and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed game and media studies carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, then evaluate the author or designer and audience or player, represented system and claim, formal rules states actions and transitions, permitted strategies and constraints, feedback and consequences, player enactment and interpretation, simulation omissions and ideological assumptions, interaction with verbal and visual rhetoric and evidence of persuasive reception are explicit.

Clarity

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making the author or designer and audience or player, represented system and claim, formal rules states actions and transitions, permitted strategies and constraints, feedback and consequences, player enactment and interpretation, simulation omissions and ideological assumptions, interaction with verbal and visual rhetoric and evidence of persuasive reception are explicit the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test.

Manages Complexity

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to Procedural rhetoric. Procedural rhetoric compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning

  1. Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed game and media studies carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem. 2. Lock the constitutive rule. Express the author or designer and audience or player, represented system and claim, formal rules states actions and transitions, permitted strategies and constraints, feedback and consequences, player enactment and interpretation, simulation omissions and ideological assumptions, interaction with verbal and visual rhetoric and evidence of persuasive reception are explicit independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of game and media studies because they reuse the typed game and media studies carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, A designed rule system permits and forbids actions, maps choices to consequences and lets users enact a model; the experienced gap between modeled rules and alternatives supports an argument about causality values or institutions., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the author or designer and audience or player, represented system and claim, formal rules states actions and transitions, permitted strategies and constraints, feedback and consequences, player enactment and interpretation, simulation omissions and ideological assumptions, interaction with verbal and visual rhetoric and evidence of persuasive reception are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions

Local relationship map for Procedural rhetoricParents appear above the current abstraction, mutual partners to the right, and children below. Node labels state whether each abstraction is prime or domain-specific; colors identify relation types.Procedural rhetoricDOMAINPrime abstraction: Representation — is a kind ofRepresentationPRIME

Current abstraction Procedural rhetoric Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

  • Procedural rhetoric is a kind of Representation Prime

    The proposed strict upward parent is prime:representation.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

Procedural rhetoric sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (30th percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Narrative, Rhetoric & Writing (24 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-08