The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[Gradine]

Nobody owes you a debate

 

[Gradine]

 

[Lanefan]

So? Someone has a take you don't agree with, and the discussion in it won't be productive. Big whoop.

If you don't feel the ground rules are genuine, shouldn't you be choosing not to participate anyway?

Quite the opposite: in cases where it appears the (+) tag is being used in bad faith (i.e. non-genuine ground rules) I feel I and others should be sticking our oars in to challenge that usage.

Nobody's ever likely to complain about a thread something like "Help me beef up the Ranger in 5e (+)". That's an excellent use of the + tag in good faith, looking for positive ideas and suggestions on how to either fix a perceived issue in a game system or just make a class work a bit better in play

But a thread something like "5e D&D is the best RPG system ever! (+)" IMO deserves to have its + tag challenged all over the place; not because I happen to personally disagree with the premise but because the premise itself is an open-to-debate opinion and the + tag is being used as a weapon to squelch that debate.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Quite the opposite: in cases where it appears the (+) tag is being used in bad faith (i.e. non-genuine ground rules) I feel I and others should be sticking our oars in to challenge that usage.

Nobody's ever likely to complain about a thread something like "Help me beef up the Ranger in 5e (+)". That's an excellent use of the + tag in good faith, looking for positive ideas and suggestions on how to either fix a perceived issue in a game system or just make a class work a bit better in play

But a thread something like "5e D&D is the best RPG system ever! (+)" IMO deserves to have its + tag challenged all over the place; not because I happen to personally disagree with the premise but because the premise itself is an open-to-debate opinion and the + tag is being used as a weapon to squelch that debate.

But the forum literally has a way to challenge a + thread... You can start your own thread!

But also: who cares if someone is creating a + thread with an open-ended opinion? Just don't reply, don't read it, and move on. Or ignore them!

 

[Lanefan]

1) You can have that debate in another thread. You just don't get to hijack a thread to have a debate that it wasn't intended to host.

2) Not everything must always be up for debate.

1 is not a good option, as I noted elsewhere.

2 is something I very much disagree with - everything is always up for debate, even in those cases where one or more sides in said debate is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Reynard]

But again, a + thread would only be a cudgel if you could not then go and start your own thread about your own ideas.

If I start a thread titled "Paladins Are Boring (+)" and you strongly disagree... Then either don't read that thread, or start your own thread called "Paladins Are Exciting (+)".

I guess I am at a bit of a loss as to why one would start a discussion thread on a topic they didn't want to discuss, other that the aforementioned validation.

 

[Gradine]

But the forum literally has a way to challenge a + thread... You can start your own thread!

But also: who cares if someone is creating a + thread with an open-ended opinion? Just don't reply, don't read it, and move on. Or ignore them!

Bu.... bu.... bu...

 

[Gradine]

2 is something I very much disagree with - everything is always up for debate, even in those cases where one or more sides in said debate is demonstrably wrong.

Nobody owes you a debate

 

[BookTenTiger]

I guess I am at a bit of a loss as to why one would start a discussion thread on a topic they didn't want to discuss, other that the aforementioned validation.

I don't get a lot of behavior on this forum! But I really don't have to, I just can accept it and move on.

 

[Alzrius]

1 is not a good option, as I noted elsewhere.

2 is something I very much disagree with - everything is always up for debate, even in those cases where one or more sides in said debate is demonstrably wrong.

A minor notation here to say that "always" has different contextual inferences (as I see it). I think that there are times and places where a particular debate on a particular topic is in poor taste, e.g. it's probably not a good idea to debate different religious beliefs about the afterlife at someone's funeral. So in that sense it's not "always" up for debate.

Alternatively, "always" can mean "perpetually" in the sense that certain topics can eventually become settled insofar as no one having a legitimate basis for questioning them. That I disagree with. No matter how virtuous/moral/sacred an idea may be, it is never beyond being examined, questioned, and debated.

 

[Alzrius]

Nobody owes you a debate

Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.

 

[Lanefan]

But also: who cares if someone is creating a + thread with an open-ended opinion? Just don't reply, don't read it, and move on. Or ignore them!

Putting people on ignore just isn't something I do, on principle.

 

[Gradine]

Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.

The difference is, I'm not asking for that.

 

[Lanefan]

A minor notation here to say that "always" has different contextual inferences (as I see it). I think that there are times and places where a particular debate on a particular topic is in poor taste, e.g. it's probably not a good idea to debate different religious beliefs about the afterlife at someone's funeral. So in that sense it's not "always" up for debate.

Agreed. You put this better than I could have.

Alternatively, "always" can mean "perpetually" in the sense that certain topics can eventually become settled insofar as no one having a legitimate basis for questioning them. That I disagree with. No matter how virtuous/moral/sacred an idea may be, it is never beyond being examined, questioned, and debated.

Very much agreed.

 

[Emoshin]

1 is not a good option, as I noted elsewhere.

2 is something I very much disagree with - everything is always up for debate, even in those cases where one or more sides in said debate is demonstrably wrong.

Imagine a room with 10 people:

• 5 of those people love a formal debate
• the other 5 people hate formal debates

The debate-philes hear the debate-phobes discussing something, and they wade into their conversation on why something is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because the debate-philes are concerned about an "echo chamber" happening in the room and must act on it.

So the debate-phobes, having nowhere else to go, just leave the room.

Now you have a room with 5 debate-philes. The room is now an echo chamber for the advantages of debating.

How is that optimal?

 

[Alzrius]

The difference is, I'm not asking for that.

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

 

[Gradine]

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

They pretty clearly did, actually

 

[Xamnam]

Likewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.

I see very little daylight between that and

But a thread something like "5e D&D is the best RPG system ever! (+)" IMO deserves to have its + tag challenged all over the place

Now, I can see a difference between questioning an assertion, and asking for a debate, but the end result to the person it's being directed towards is largely the same.

 

[Alzrius]

They pretty clearly did, actually

No, looking at the post you replied to, they really didn't.

But if you want to know what someone meant by something, I recommend asking them. It's usually pretty effective, watch:

Hey @Lanefan, where you saying that people owed you a debate?

 

[Lanefan]

Imagine a room with 10 people:

• 5 of those people love a formal debates
• the other 5 people hate formal debates

The debate-philes hear the debate-phobes discussing something, and they wade into their conversation on why something is demonstrably wrong. Why? Because the debate-philes are concerned about an "echo chamber" happening in the room and must act on it.

If the debate-phobes are such because they simply dislike having their stances and opinions challenged, even if-when such challenges are polite and reasonable, then I have no sympathy for them.

If however by "formal debates" you mean Robert's Rules and motions and points of order then yeah, I can see that.