Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7411866" data-attributes="member: 12731">Here's the Meta post Morrus wrote on the subject, [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]:Here's a plus thread Morrus started, with his own definition: To me, "stay on topic" plus "positive stuff in the spirit of the thread title" (direct Morrus quotes) was clear enough. It would have allowed a poster to, say, start a thread on My Little Pony the RPG. Discussing things, i don't know: how would it look like? what system to use? who'd buy it? And so on.  And specifically this (my personal opinion): posters only posting to tell the OP what a bad idea that would be, why it would never happen, etc getting sanctioned by moderation. A very useful feature of any discussion board, if you ask me. Especially one where this type of shitpost is all too common; where users are (I'm afraid) accustomed to being able to outright question or deride the premise/spirit of the thread and getting away with it - in my case successfully bringing several threads to a crashing halt (and in at least one case getting the thread closed). Enabling the plus thread tag would have been a very welcome signal that this kind of behavior isn't acceptable. Or rather, that it constitutes an attempt at derailing the topic: this is not about censorship; it's about manners. Start a new thread if you absolutely must: if you started the previous example thread the idea is that you would have to accept (free speech and all) someone starting a "why a My Little Pony RPG is a bad idea and should never get made" thread, for instance. The big win is: it would mean its posts didn't appear in the first thread, which would remain all positive and constructive. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Thank you for finally providing an official reply. I could never understand why this wasn't formally included in site rules (hard to sanction a user for breaking unwritten rules, after all). Now at least we know why. In a cautiously optimistic spirit, I note with gratitude the attention of moderation in this case (direct link removed). Thank you for that.RegardsZapp</blockquote>

Verification