Sure, why not?

Wikipedia provides the following:

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose. — Stipulative Definition, Wiki

So, stipulative definitions are tantamount to subjective descriptions or theorizing of events? When does a stipulative definition become an ordinary definition then? Are you basically saying that the two are the same?

Perhaps. When is a definition ever not stipulative. Always, at the beginning, it is stipulative, yes? That becomes common usage and along comes someone who stipulates for a then present purpose some other definition. It is then forgot, or replaces the old common meaning, or becomes a term-of-art.

For TPF, I'd welcome a requirement that all the significant terms of an OP either have their definitions provided or stipulated. That alone would shut down a lot of so-called God posts and reduce other nonsense by about 78%.

Perhaps. When is a definition ever not stipulative. — tim wood

I don't know. That seems to be my main question here.

For TPF, I'd welcome a requirement that all the significant terms of an OP either have their definitions provided or stipulated. That alone would shut down a lot of so-called God posts and reduce other nonsense by about 78%. — tim wood

Here's what I said a while ago. I still think it would be good to implement:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4310/on-stipulative-definitions