it's not nitpicking, because unlike terms like "gambling", "investing" and such, the term ZERO SUM GAME has an exact, precise definition
the term was invented by a theorist to describe an EXACT situation that is EXACTLY definable
there are no nuances
what most people (e.g. you) cannot seem to understand is that there is no "wiggle room" with this term because it has an exact meaning, and is perfectly defined.
a system either IS or ISN'T zero sum
there is no grey area.
many, if not most, descriptive english words allow for nuance, wiggle room gradations of meaning, and of course vary between fields.
but zero sum game is no more debatable as to meaning than is the terms "two way auction market", "volume weighted average price", or "open interest on the YM december futures contract"
what some people WANT to do is to redefine the term "zero sum game" to endeavors that are close to, but are not zero sum games
sorry.
when you are talking game theory, you are talking a very specific term with an exact definition
it is very refreshing to have descriptive terminology and classification for a system(s) that is absolutely NOT debatable.
a system either IS or ISN'T zero sum game
stocks are not. that is irrefutable
WITHIN a given timeframe (like a bunch of traders gaming each other for shares of the latest momo stock), it can SEEM zero sum because most of the group is going flat at eod, and to a large extent they are flipping shares among themselves (although LTFP's will be participating too given a good enough price)
any individual can build wealth using either zero sum games (as many professional poker players do, and futures traders) or non-zero sum games (real estate investments/trades, stock investments/trades, etc.) OR lose wealth in either type of system
but it is absolutely not subject to debate what systems are and aren't zero sum. it is exceptionally easy to quantify
