The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[Alzrius]

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.

I see a difference also, so I don't think we're in disagreement here. The person it's being directed toward (which strikes me as having some wiggle room, in that you can debate a presumption without necessarily directing it toward the person who raised it, though that's a very thin needle to thread), isn't compelled to respond to someone who disagrees with them. They certainly don't owe it to anyone to do so.

 

[Gradine]

No, they really didn't.

I'm not sure how you can interpret "Everything is always up for debate" in any other way, particularly in the context of this thread, which is "some people want to have a discussion without having to debate 'X', and you don't agree with that".

It sounds a while lot like "I should be able to debate the premise of any thread".

I'm willing to accept I've misinterpreted, but I'm curious to discover what else that could possibly mean

 

[Umbran]

If the debate-phobes

With respect, in general, what goes on here is generally not debate. It is argument. There's a big difference.

 

[Lanefan]

No, 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?

Honestly, I'm not sure if I did, and I'm not sure if I didn't. I probably implied it somewhere with or without meanng to.

More seriously, I don't think anyone's owed a debate but at the same time I don't see debate as something to be denied.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not sure how you can interpret "Everything is always up for debate" in any other way, particularly in the context of this thread, which is "some people want to have a discussion without having to debate 'X', and you don't agree with that".

It sounds a while lot like "I should be able to debate the premise of any thread".

I'm willing to accept I've misinterpreted, but I'm curious to discover what else that could possibly mean

Well, leaving aside that I already mentioned at least two different ways to read that particular idea (i.e. "everything is always up for debate"), I don't think that an assertion that no idea is ever beyond questioning is comparable to saying that individuals whom you disagree with "owe" you a debate with regard to them.

For that matter, someone purporting that they should be able to disagree with the premise of any thread (as a general idea, even if that's not allowed here) also strikes me as not being comparable to that.

To reiterate, saying that you can and should be able to disagree with any idea is not the same thing as saying that the people whom you're disagreeing with owe you anything, much less a debate.

 

[Gradine]

More seriously, I don't think anyone's owed a debate but at the same time I don't see debate as something to be denied.

It becomes clearer why that's true when you've spent a few years having your very existence up for debate.

Even outside of that, the same threads getting derailed by the same arguments get tiring. And there's no ignoring it. It will derail threads if it isn't discouraged. In some cases, in many cases even, it's pretty necessary to discourage

 

[Gradine]

To reiterate, saying that you can and should be able to disagree with any idea is not the same thing as saying that the people whom you're disagreeing with owe you anything, much less a debate.

Then why question (+) threads? It's not about whether X or Y opinion is acceptable or showed to hold out anything. It's a declaration that X or Y idea is irrelevant and/or damaging to the conversation that the poster is trying to create.. What is so terrible about accommodating that request?

 

[Emoshin]

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.

I guess sympathy is another life choice you can make there, but let me ask again:

Sympathy or not, how is it optimal that the debate-philes have effectively created their own echo chamber as a result of attempting to stop every other echo chamber?

(Or to Umbran's point, replace debate-philes with argument-philes, and debate-phobes with argument-phobes)

 

[HectorsNemesis]

We currently have a thread titled PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content—no more Black orcs, Asian yellow orcs, or Native American red orcs—amend GAZ10 (+positive, A-game thread). I'd like a little clarification on the use of the + title. Because in this case, it appears as though someone is using the thread as a pulpit to bash WotC and no dissenting opinions are welcome because of the little +.

Based on what was said here, it looks like you should start a thread like say:
Don't petition WotC to remove/ban previously published books and modules! (+)

I mean I can think of a few reasons why book banning is bad.

 

[Xamnam]

I see a difference also, so I don't think we're in disagreement here. The person it's being directed toward (which strikes me as having some wiggle room, in that you can debate a presumption without necessarily directing it toward the person who raised it, though that's a very thin needle to thread), isn't compelled to respond to someone who disagrees with them. They certainly don't owe it to anyone to do so.

As you say, it's an thin needle. However, there absolutely are people (not everyone, obviously) who are very demanding of a response when they come across an idea they don't care for. Stating at the start of the conversation that, that sort of derailment is not welcome in this specific thread, feels very reasonable to me.

 

[Alzrius]

Then why question (+) threads? It's not about whether X or Y opinion is acceptable or showed to hold out anything. It's a declaration that X or Y idea is irrelevant and/or damaging to the conversation that the poster is trying to create.. What is so terrible about accommodating that request?

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding you here; you seem to be moving away from the point that we were discussing before, which is whether or not saying that no point is ever beyond debating means (i.e. necessarily implies) that you're owed a debate.

I don't believe that it does.

If you're saying that you see no other reason for why someone would ever make that assertion, then that strikes me as a failure of imagination. Insofar as (+) threads go, I don't think that disagreeing with the premise is "irrelevant" or "damaging" or "terrible" (presuming that's what you meant; as I said, I found your post quite hard to understand); it's that people have a different opinion that they see value in sharing, and don't believe that it should be preemptively disallowed (or sequestered off to another thread where other interested parties might not see it).

 

[Gradine]

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding you here; you seem to be moving away from the point that we were discussing before, which is whether or not saying that no point is ever beyond debating means (i.e. necessarily implies) that you're owed a debate.

I don't believe that it does.

If you're saying that you see no other reason for why someone would ever make that assertion, then that strikes me as a failure of imagination. Insofar as (+) threads go, I don't think that disagreeing with the premise is "irrelevant" or "damaging" or "terrible" (presuming that's what you meant; as I said, I found your post quite hard to understand); it's that people have a different opinion that they see value in sharing, and don't believe that it should be preemptively disallowed (or sequestered off to another thread where other interested parties might not see it).

The failure of imagination is yours here, and I'll try to explain why.

So person A, Alex, comes across a (+) thread. He, as you say, has a different opinion, and he sees value in sharing it.

The whole point of the (+) thread is that it's been declared, up front, by the poster, let's call them Pam, that there isn't value in the opinion being shared. They're saying "please don't make X argument, we've heard it, we've considered it, we don't find value in it."

The problem here isn't that Pam simply doesn't understand that what Alex had to say had value. It's that Alex simply doesn't understand that just because he thinks his opinion has value, that everyone else should think that, too. Alex needs to learn that his opinion is neither new nor wanted.

Not all opinions have value, full stop, and many opinions can be very disruptive when expressed in specific instances. The whole point of the (+) is to cut those disruptions off at the head. To ask, request, that you not talk about X or Y in this thread.

And if Alex can't accept that his opinions aren't valued, and insists on sharing them anyway... what then is he trying to get out of it, then a debate? One he very much isn't owed.

 

[Alzrius]

So person A, Alex, comes across a (+) thread. He, as you say, has a different opinion, and he sees value in sharing it.

The whole point of the (+) thread is that it's been declared, up front, by the poster, let's call them Pam, that there isn't value in the opinion being shared.

And this is where your hypothetical goes off the rails. No one person gets to decide which opinions have value and which do not; that right goes to each individual for themselves. Insofar as (+) threads go, that they'd be put forward as "opinions that disagree with my own have no value" is probably the biggest argument against them, as it holds forth the idea that the person starting the thread gets to declare who can say what.

Whether or not Alex's opinion is new doesn't really matter, but wanted? That's not up to Pam to decide. Other people who read/participate in the thread might not have heard those opinions before, and might find value in them. Ideas are always being (re)discovered by people every day, which is why no debate is ever truly settled. And of course, a thread doesn't belong to the person who started it; if they don't want to hear an opinion that disagrees with them, they're not taking into account that other posters/lurkers might.

Now obviously, this is a scenario that's being put forward in the abstract. EN World has a policy regarding (+) threads, and going against that will likely result in moderator action. But insofar as the idea of them goes, people who see them as a negative because they stifle debate are not saying that they're entitled to a debate. They're just saying that it shouldn't be necessarily ruled out because someone else decided that dissenting opinions have no value.

 

[Gradine]

Whether or not Alex's opinion is new doesn't really matter, but wanted? That's not up to Pam to decide.

By the rules of (+) threads on this forum, it absolutely is.

 

[Alzrius]

By the rules of (+) threads on this forum, it absolutely is.

As I noted, the discussion we're having is in the abstract. EN World's rules are what they are, but we can at least talk about the idea(s) that this particular rule deals with.

 

[Lanefan]

The failure of imagination is yours here, and I'll try to explain why.

So person A, Alex, comes across a (+) thread. He, as you say, has a different opinion, and he sees value in sharing it.

The whole point of the (+) thread is that it's been declared, up front, by the poster, let's call them Pam, that there isn't value in the opinion being shared. They're saying "please don't make X argument, we've heard it, we've considered it, we don't find value in it."

Two things here.

One: those last few uses of "we" should be "I", as Pam is trying to unilaterally set the parameters of discussion before it even begins.

Two: more broadly, assuming the opinions presented don't violate any social morals, does Pam even have the right to make the call as to what opinions are valid and what are not?

The problem here isn't that Pam simply doesn't understand that what Alex had to say had value. It's that Alex simply doesn't understand that just because he thinks his opinion has value, that everyone else should think that, too. Alex needs to learn that his opinion is neither new nor wanted.

Disagree. Every opinion has value, even if that value doesn't resonate with me-as-reader.

That's a large part of the reason why I never put anyone on ignore here. Everyone has something worthwhile to say, and I don't want to miss it when it happens.

I mean, there's a few regulars in here with whom I get in towering and sometimes very frustrating arguments, but even then I learn things from those arguments (and I can only hope that goes both ways!) and feel the effort put into them was worth it.

And if Alex can't accept that his opinions aren't valued, and insists on sharing them anyway... what then is he trying to get out of it, then a debate? One he very much isn't owed.

If nothing else, what Alex is doing is reminding people there's other opinions out there, and to not assume the opinion holding sway in that particular discussion is universally shared - or even in the majority.

 

[overgeeked]

So, mod staff, please help me with something. In a recent plus thread there are historical inaccuracies baked into the premise, and, it being a + thread, we're not meant to argue over the premise. So, what's the proper response to this by members and staff?

And no, I'm not talking about opinions we disagree with, rather historically inaccurate claims. Things like "Gary Gygax designed Traveller" or similar.

I can't imagine "go crash the thread" is going to be the guidance here, hence the question and this thread.

"Do nothing" or "ignore it" seems...problematic...in that it explicitly allows misinformation to flourish. Yeah, this is the internet, we can't really stop the flood of misinformation, but hopefully something more than shrug is the response.

So: when + threads include historical inaccuracies, what should we do?

 

[Gradine]

I can appreciate where the two of you are coming from, from a higher level philosophical standpoint. From a practical standpoint? No, really, not all opinions have value, and if a person is starting a conversation in a thread on this forum, they get to set the parameters of the conversation, and that is a very, very, good thing. It keeps the conversation on track, and keeps it from getting derailed by people who will specifically and in bad faith insist their opinions be debated. Sealioning is a significant problem in any online forum (and I mean forum as in any space for conversation, not specifically just message boards) and there is no better practical solution that allowing for and enforcing thread parameters.

Using my example from the top of the thread, if I'm looking for advice on how to make adjustments to Curse of Strahd that I don't like and know my players won't like because they don't jive super well with our values, the absolute last thing I want is for that thread to be bogged down by countless posts from people telling me not to change things and that me and my players are too sensitive and to find something else to run and I'm sorry but none of those opinions were at all helpful or valuable and they ended up derailing and getting the thread locked before I was able to get any actual helpful advice. Restarting the thread with a (+) made the situation much better and in the end I was able to get a lot of incredibly great advice because I was able to set the parameters of the conversation.

(+) threads are incredibly positive and helpful and I have plenty of first-hand experience as to why.

 

[Redwizard007]

They pretty clearly did, actually

For someone who doesn't owe anyone a debate, you sure are engaging a lot.

 

[Gradine]

For someone who doesn't owe anyone a debate, you sure are engaging a lot.

Lol yeah, I just caught onto that myself