The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[overgeeked]

We can give general guidance here, and have been trying, but in order to speak specifically to your example, we'd need the details - which would then develop into a discussion of that topic, rather than this one.

Exactly. Which is why I started my own thread about it. Because my questions were specifically about my example and do not pertain to this thread. I did not post in this thread at first...my thread was merged into it. Since Morrus thinks this is where my questions belong, here we are. If you think talking about my specific example warrants its own thread, feel free to pull my posts back out of this one and put them into their own thread.

If folks feel a need to interject every time they see what they think are inaccuracies, then no discussion ever gets anywhere, because there's always someone who thinks you are inaccurate.

Discourse is a social interaction. Folks sometimes have issues remembering that there is little point with correction if the subject you are trying to correct isn't in a state to receive that updated information - just confronting people with "You are wrong!" has a very high failure rate for that task. When the subject you're correcting has specifically stated they don't want to have to defend their premise is exactly the wrong time to try to correct that premise.

It is a matter of reading the room, and picking your battles. Since the text medium and people-on-internet are bad at discretion, we have some formalism around it.

And all I want is a little bit more formalism. I just want to know the mods' stance on people using + threads to shield themselves from others calling out their BS. If the mods' stance is honestly "we know it when we see it" it's likely better to never interact with or use + threads at all because we have no solid way of knowing what is or isn't allowed...because it comes down to the mods' discretion. Which is awesome...for the mods...but leaves everyone else guessing.

"Designer X is awesome and deserves praise because they invented these things [+]" when the designer is not awesome and did not in fact invent those things. It's an edge case, sure. But it's not theoretical.

"Can I have some clarity on this?"

"No."

That's not awesome I gotta tell you.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Exactly. Which is why I started my own thread about it. Because my questions were specifically about my example and do not pertain to this thread. I did not post in this thread at first...my thread was merged into it. Since Morrus thinks this is where my questions belong, here we are. If you think talking about my specific example warrants its own thread, feel free to pull my posts back out of this one and put them into their own thread.

And all I want is a little bit more formalism. I just want to know the mods' stance on people using + threads to shield themselves from others calling out their BS. If the mods' stance is honestly "we know it when we see it" it's likely better to never interact with or use + threads at all because we have no solid way of knowing what is or isn't allowed...because it comes down to the mods' discretion. Which is awesome...for the mods...but leaves everyone else guessing.

"Designer X is awesome and deserves praise because they invented these things [+]" when the designer is not awesome and did not in fact invent those things. It's an edge case, sure. But it's not theoretical.

"Can I have some clarity on this?"

"No."

That's not awesome I gotta tell you.

I guess I'm confused on why you can't start your own thread on "My problems with designer X"?

 

[MGibster]

We can give general guidance here, and have been trying, but in order to speak specifically to your example, we'd need the details - which would then develop into a discussion of that topic, rather than this one.

If I had a nickel for everytime I talked to an employee about an employee relations issue and they replied, "Show me in the policy where it says I can't do that" I'd have, oh, about .50 cents I guess. While there are some things you can be very specific about in a policy, you can't really cover everything in a comprehensive manner. Sometimes the best you can do is offer general guidance and render decisions based on the circumstances.

 

[Umbran]

"Designer X is awesome and deserves praise because they invented these things [+]" when the designer is not awesome and did not in fact invent those things. It's an edge case, sure. But it's not theoretical.

So, I repeat, personal assessments are not facts. "...is not awesome," is not a matter of fact, but of your opinion.

"Can I have some clarity on this?"

"No."

Because "personal assessments are not facts" is unclear?

If the (+) thread premise is itself a personal assessment, you should not consider your own assessment "fact" to try challenge it. That seems pretty clear to me.

Even if they are wrong, that doesn't mean challenging them on correctness is a great idea, and it would probably be wise not to. That is a bit fussier, but the intent also seems clear.

If you want a clear path for walking into a (+) thread and telling folks, "You are wrong, and this whole disucssion is therefore wrong," you will not get it.

 

[Morrus]

"Can I have some clarity on this?"

"No."

That's not awesome I gotta tell you.

It's not awesome that it's even something we have to deal with. We'd much rather not. But such is life.

We're not going to write rules for social interactions which are best judged case-by-case, however not awesome that is. I feel we’ve tried really hard to be clear, and you feel we're not clear enough, and that's a situation we're going to have to live with.

 

[Emoshin]

It's not awesome that it's even something we have to deal with. We'd much rather not. But such is life.

We're not going to write rules for scial interactions which are best judged case-by-case, however not awesome that is. I feel weve tried really hard to be clear, and you feel we'r enot clear enough, and that's a situation we're going to have to live with.

(In general, I'm guessing you don't hear this quite enough, so...)

Thank you.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess I'm confused on why you can't start your own thread on "My problems with designer X"?

How many times does it need to be said: starting a different thread is not the answer!

For two reasons. One, those reading the original thread aren't likely to be bothered to jump to a second thread; and two, it doesn't do anything to break up the echo chamber the first thread might become.

 

[BookTenTiger]

How many times does it need to be said: starting a different thread is not the answer!

For two reasons. One, those reading the original thread aren't likely to be bothered to jump to a second thread; and two, it doesn't do anything to break up the echo chamber the first thread might become.

I just think if you look at what actually happens on the board, this isn't true. Right now we have two threads about a petition, one is a + thread and one isn't. One has 154 replies, the other has 157 replies. They both have a variety of viewpoints. Everyone is free to read and participate in both threads. To me, that doesn't look like two echo chambers... that looks like two thriving discussions.

Do you honestly believe either person who started those threads would be better served by having a single thread? Doesn't experience on this board teach us that these very different, very strong opinions would actually prevent discussion from happening in a single thread?

 

[J.Quondam]

How many times does it need to be said: starting a different thread is not the answer!

For two reasons. One, those reading the original thread aren't likely to be bothered to jump to a second thread; and two, it doesn't do anything to break up the echo chamber the first thread might become.

On the other hand...
First, maybe those reading the original thread stop following that thread because they can't be bothered to slog through whatever irrelevancies have bogged down the thread?
And second, why exactly must so-called "echo-chambers" be broken up, and who decided that? Is there a policy against these so-called "echo-chambers"?

 

[J.Quondam]

Also let's be more honest on the idea of echo-chambers. A real echo-chamber has many corners. That means when you step out of one corner to escape some babble, you find yourself in the same echo-chamber amidst the same babble. That describes, for example, some political "news" sites where every article is spun the same way, every editorial is similarly biased, every ad is targeted to a specific crowd, every comment section is peopled almost entirely by like-minded commenters, and most every link off the site points to something agreeable their ideology, thereby expanding the echo-chamber still further.

ENWorld is not even remotely an echo-chamber. If it was, I wouldn't be able to hear the constant whining about how moderation and + threads and ignore functions "constitute a deeply, soulfully offensive infringement upon mah god-given right to free speechification, sir!"