Did you ever address my counterarguments to this? Well, let’s try again.
Ganking is a type of PvP. We refer to it as “ganking,” instead of “PvP,” because that distinguishes it from other forms of PvP, and clearly and concisely conveys to others exactly what we’re talking about. We do the same thing for roams, gatecamps, whaling, strat ops, incursions, mining, and abyssals. Nobody says, “do you want to go on a PvP,” or “would you like to run some PvE’s?” Everyone refers to every activity in the game by the specific type of PvE or PvP that it is, unless the actually have a need to discuss an entire class of activities. So, calling something by a more specific name doesn’t mean that it’s not a part of a larger set of things. For example, calling a tomato a tomato doesn’t mean it’s not a fruit. Moreover, the language that people use to describe things can be inconsistent with what that thing is. The fact that people think tomatoes vegetables, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fruit.
Seriously, your argument is some straight up bad logic, and I’m baffled at the fact that you keep repeating it. Like, how you do not see the logical flaw in this is beyond me.
No it is not a more robust definition of PvP. Aside from certain gamers with an agenda, most gamers, devs, youtubers, and gaming journalists all consider PvP to be competition between players. And they contrast PvP with PvE, which is when the player competes against the environment (i.e. computer controlled characters, environmental hazards). Moreover, the first 3 (or 4) definitions of PvP that I found were consistent with this definition (which I linked in a previous post, but feel free to do a google search yourself).
So no, that is not a “more robust” definition. It is you who is trying to narrow the definition of PvP, because you want to delegitimize a play style that you don’t like.