Discussions re: RPG Theory

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you are fighting against basic human nature here. There are tons and tons of people here who can have a nice conversation and even a well thought out debate and not take things personally. Then there are some posters who, it seems to me, clearly have no idea the difference between an opinion and a fact and are incredibly difficult to even have a basic interaction with because it becomes so difficult to communicate. People you want to punch are just part of being on the internet (and the reason I literally NEVER touch the multiplayer content in any videogames).

Oftentimes threads will morph and change into a different topic than that which was originally stated. I think this mirrors exactly how a normal IRL conversation goes. It twists and turns and ends up in a different place than it started. If you allow OPs to close threads (because they are bored, or mad, or for whatever reason) you allow them to shut down a conversation between two or more others that may just be getting started.

But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.

Some good points, but OTOH, again, forum threads aren’t IRL in person conversations.

However, about in person conversations. At a gathering, if someone won’t drop something, you absolutely can tell them to drop it or leave the conversation, and all it takes to enforce it (unless they are a very awkward maladjusted jerk), is for a couple other people in the discussion to agree.

That isn’t possible on a forum, thus moderation. But, moderation doesn’t always work.

at the very least, we should have the capability to put threads on Ignore, so they don’t show up on our feed, and easily delete all of our posts in a thread.

 

[Umbran]

You’ve misunderstood.

Ah. Misunderstanding on both sides, then - I was referring to it as it is typically perceived by those who are reported*. I was using that language to be demonstrative of the dynamic that results. Sorry if that wasn't clear.





* I mean that from experience - as in, I have had numerous private conversations about such incidents with those involved, this is the typical outlook. Yes, it is childish. I can't help that, it is the way people get.

 

[Morrus]

But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.

Of the things mentioned in this thread, this is the one I do think is an issue. I'd love to see more collaborative work on things like that on the forums, and I agree that threadcrapping is annoying as hell. I'll talk to Umbran and Danny and see what they think we can do about it. My main worry is that people would use it to prevent others from simply disagreeing with them about topic, which would be stifling to discussion (or would require an extra moderator overhead which we'd frankly rather not have to deal with - moderating isn't much fun).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

FWIW, I tried to resurrect the "+" tag (as mentioned previously) and I don't think it works that well. If people are going to crash the thread, they are going to regardless of the tag and how gently you point it out.

We are having a bit of a conversation about how we can make this a thing we can support. It will probably mean having to define the [+] topic clearly, and we will have to note what should, and should not, be considered disagreement. More on that as it develops.

This one didn't have an explanation, and I don't understand it (in terms of the reason).

Discussion incoming.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Same thing happened to me, with regards to the speeding analogy, in the thread about Judges Guild. It was very confusing, and felt totally arbitrary.

 

[Morrus]

This whole thread is a bit gish-gallopy, with about 40 different topics now, so I'm just focused on the threadcrapping/[+]thread topic for now. I can't follow all the rest!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?

 

[Morrus]

Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?

Gish-gallop is a debating tactic in which one is overwhelmed with multiple arguments and can’t address them all simultaneously. It’s very loosely used here.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I have never heard that phrase in my 46 years but I have now added it to my arsenal for the future.

Did you have a time in your life you were a "formal debater" where you picked it up?

Sadly after perusing the Wikipedia entry on it I WAS familiar with *The Chewbacca Defense" which is related.