Are we having this discussion again?
If it plays itself, constructing a story without any input, it’s still a game. (Zero-player games is the term, I believe.)
If it’s avantgarde poetry without rhyme or reason it’s still literature.
We do distinguish between IF and interactive literature, there are interactive comics. I’m sure most of you would agree that games where the graphics are essential to the plot are point-and-click adventures rather than IF, even if it’s literally interactive fiction.
If an author calls their creation a “game”, who is any of us to dispute that? But it’s fair to try to categorise such a work with other categories, to categorise it according to the subcategories of games, and to question what game-like elements it has.
If an author doesn’t call their creation a “game”, but you think it is one, great. If the author disagrees, hopefully everyone can stay respectful.
Mod post here. I consulted with another mod about whether we should conform to Dan’s suggestion above that we explicitly add “game” to the “broad definition” clause in the Code of Conduct. Their opinion was that “X isn’t a game”-style arguments were already implicitly included in the part that Dan quoted (“Don’t claim a type or style of game already accepted by the community doesn’t belong”).
Accordingly, and for the reasons Dan said just above, I think it’s best to lock the thread. My apologies for what I’ve done to keep the thread going.