Is It OK?

[icefractal]

@Icefractal: you nominally described five different forms of negation without mentioning which of them, if any, is supposed to cover two of the most common ones:

I did say at least five, not that those are the complete set. But also, I wouldn't call either of those two "GM negation". Neither relies on being the GM, and the second one isn't even negation, it's just a response.

Like, if a person (who happened to be the GM), pulled out a gun and said "I'll shoot you unless you take that action back!" - that wouldn't be GM negation. It'd be a crime though.

This can get to the point where I would hesitate to even call it 'negation'. It's definitely something, and that something could result in negation in some cases, but...

It's true, the way I defined it is pretty broad, maybe too broad.

I think that maybe more usefully, it would apply when this is a pattern of behavior - there are nominally computers in the game which can be hacked and (IC) have important data on them, but in practice the GM will give out the plot-important information with or without hacking, and won't give out any knot-cutting information regardless of hacking.

Also, IME, it's really hard to avoid doing this sometimes in an improv-heavy game. So I wouldn't say it's something where a single instance is a problem.