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.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?
But the forum literally has a way to challenge a + thread... You can start your own thread!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.
1 is not a good option, as I noted elsewhere.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.
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.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 (+)".
Bu.... bu.... bu...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!
Nobody owes you a debate2 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.
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.
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.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.
Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.Nobody owes you a debate
Putting people on ignore just isn't something I do, on principle.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!
The difference is, I'm not asking for that.Likewise, nobody owes you unquestioning acceptance of your premise, whatever it may be.
Agreed. You put this better than I could have.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.
Very much agreed.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.
Imagine a room with 10 people: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.
I see very little daylight between that andLikewise, @Lanefan didn't say that anyone "owed" him a debate.
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
No, looking at the post you replied to, they really didn't.They pretty clearly did, actually
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.Imagine a room with 10 people:
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.
- 5 of those people love a formal debates
- the other 5 people hate formal debates