It is more likely you are the one playing semantics.
Playing semantics rely on labels. When you state that a game is what it is beyond what the label can be, you are certainly not in playing semantics.
When you state that a role playing game must be a role playing game to be called a role playing game, you are certainly not in playing semantics.
Role playing games exist on various support, platforms. They can exist in the entertainment sector, the health sector, the hiring sector etc
As soon as you start to consider the possibility that a game might be a role playing game not because it is a role playing but because it is a game played in a certain sector, and then, in this sector, this is what RPGs are, you are playing semantics.
Noone stating that the substance of a game is what makes a game plays semantics.
On the very contrary.
Noone stating that the substance that makes games RPGs is to be the same accross all the sectors for a game to be a RPG plays semantics.
For somebody who likes to argue semantics and engage in obfuscation, I'm a bit surprised you so readily exposed yourself as somebody who doesn't even know the dictionary definition of words he's explaining to the ignorant masses
What is less surprising is to see that when facing a substantial approach, you qualify it as arguing semantics and engaging in obfuscation.
Feel free to enlighten people around and tell how the "ugoIgo" turn sequence allows tactics.
Even though the conclusion is known: it is just a matter of semantics, a game does not require to allow tactics to be a tactical game. All what matters is the way you call a game. Call a game a tactical game and there is tactics in it. Playing semantics.