Well, I want to chime in and say that I don't think pedantry is bad, especially when its goal is to clarify a murky topic. I definitely agree with you that there is a lack of clarity in how this is presented in the DFRPG books. And as you say, this may be criticism, but it's certainly not intended to cause offense.
But, back to the pedantry at hand. It seems to me from Fred's sequence example above that while there might be some similarity between the play on aspects between an invoke (specifically "invoke for effect", which I now understand to be clearly a subset of invokes in general) and a compel, the bridge between the "invoke for effect" and the compel highlights that they are two separate things, not just in how they are defined, but separate instances of separate things in the sequence example. The "compel" that is triggered by the "invoke for effect" carries on after the "invoke for effect" has completed. The sequence example indicates the "effect" that is being specified (i.e. what is being created by the "invoke for effect") is the actual compel, and then that is run between the GM and the object of the "invoke for effect".
I feel that I now have a much better understanding of these concepts. Understanding the intention of the source material, rather than dictating to us how we should play helps us better determine whether it's appropriate for our play-style and group. To me, that's the value of an "official answer". So, for me, this has been a very productive discussion.
As far as "pooling our notes" goes, I've been editing a document that I keep for my players that keeps all of the clarifications and examples I've used with regard to the mechanics and terminology of Aspects, including the input from other folks and threads like this. It's linked here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23117.0.htmlComments and criticism always welcome.
-S
I guess I just think the terminology in the book is unclear which is probably causing the confusion. I don't mean any offense by that.
If I understand you correctly, a Compel is essentially a type of Invoke For Effect, though it can be initiated on oneself or by the GM to cause a complication of some sort (which a normal Invoke for Effect cannot be done). Or perhaps worded better, an Invoke For Effect can establish some sort of fact about the scene/whatever (like a Declaration), or it can be used as a Compel (subject to all the rules and limitations thereof).
I'm sorry about being so pedantic, I am just trying to clarify this fully in my head (Invoke for Effect is a bit vague in the rules, only explicitly mentioning declarations). Seems like that is a clarification worth stickying or the like. Again, no offense intended.
Anyhow, you don't have to respond, of course (if you are anything like me, then you probably read those dang threads that annoy you after you say you aren't responding anymore). I am sure others will respond to this post about whether I am following all this correctly.