The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[MGibster]

But who objectively determines that?

It doesn't really matter. At least the objective part. What matters is what the people who run the site have decided.

 

[Umbran]

This belongs n the Meta forum. I will move it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

100% chance that i regret posting this, but what the hell.

I have seen a number of "+" posts over the years, there is at least one getting some attention right now, and they largely seem to end up with bright red Mod-scrawl all over them, name calling, the questioning of commenters values, ethics, and parentage, and a general lack of civility. It has gotten to the point that when I see a "+" post, I tend to not even read it, for fear of running face first into a pointless argument about why Star Wars is clearly superior to Startrek, how Hollowworld could be updated to avoid cultural taboos while caricaturizing even more real world cultures, or water isn't wet (+++).

So, what is the point of a +++ conversation? On its face, they are saying, "if you agree with my base premise, please contribute, and otherwise move on," and that seems fine. We don't have to engage. We all have the option to let conspiracy buffs question the moon landing, or the existence of a deep-state conspiracy that is pulling the strings at WotC to add anthromorphic caterpillars to 6e in place of our beloved gnomes, or even the efficacy of modern medicine, BUT there are some who feel that allowing such (probably) misguided opinions a forum without challenging some of their core concepts is in its self a failure. Perhaps a failure of education, or morals, or critical thinking, but a failure that we can not make in good conscience. So we engage. We discuss. We dig into the why, and the what, and the how, and before long we get, "hey, bud. This is a +++ thread, so if you don't agree that anthropomorphic caterpillars are better than gnomes then you shouldn't be commenting," and that is infuriating.

On every forum that I have ever seen, the number 1 rule usually boils down to "don't be a dick." Now, I haven't always followed that rule as closely as I should have, and I regret that, but I have never once tried to hide an unpopular opinion behind a +++ post, although I considered doing it here. Message boards from ENWorld to Reddit are a place where I come to get differing perspectives. If I wanted an echo chamber I would be on Facebook.

I wanted to posit a question, or a poll, but I guess a rambling rant was more cathartic. So, how do you feel about + threads?

If you want to invite multiple perspectives and active debate into your thread, don't make it a +.

If you want to have a productive conversation about a topic without worrying about people focusing on the validity of your idea, make it a +.

If you want people to discuss a handful of preselected options, make it a poll.

If you want to write fiction about your game, make it a story hour.

A + thread is just one of many different options for those who post here. I find that if folks put too many qualifiers on responses for their posts, people just don't reply. So it's not really something to worry about.

 

[Redwizard007]

This belongs n the Meta forum. I will move it.

Thanks.

 

[Morrus]

On every forum that I have ever seen, the number 1 rule usually boils down to "don't be a dick." Now, I haven't always followed that rule as closely as I should have, and I regret that, but I have never once tried to hide an unpopular opinion behind a +++ post, although I considered doing it here. Message boards from ENWorld to Reddit are a place where I come to get differing perspectives.

And that's fine. Nobody is making you start + threads.

 

[Emoshin]

It doesn't really matter. At least the objective part. What matters is what the people who run the site have decided.

 

[Umbran]

BUT there are some who feel that allowing such (probably) misguided opinions a forum without challenging some of their core concepts is in its self a failure.

To put this bluntly, if you can't stop yourself from being this guy, that's not our problem.

If I wanted an echo chamber I would be on Facebook.

On a messageboard with thousands of threads, having one of them be slightly focused on something you don't agree with does not an "echo chamber" make. Since folks are allowed to start another thread that does question a (+) thread's premise, this seems an unfounded point.

 

[Lanefan]

If you want to have a productive conversation about a topic without worrying about people focusing on the validity of your idea, make it a +.

Problem is, if that productive conversation by necessity includes challenging the validity of the idea as presented - particularly when that idea is no more than an opinion or hot take in the first place, then disallowing such a challenge turns the thread into an echo chamber.

For example: were I to post a thread titled "Star Wars is better than Star Trek (+)", by using the (+) tag I'm indicating my opinion on this is not to be challenged in the thread and that I only want to hear from people who agree with me; and IMO that's a Very Bad Thing.

Further, "start a different thread" is not a good solution. It perhaps would be if we still had forked threads, where a challenging thread could be forked off from a (+) one and auto-linked; but those don't exist, and many people (often including me) can't be arsed to go and find another thread when there's one already going.

 

[Lanefan]

A single thread isn't an echo chamber -- that implies the non-existence of other threads.

In and of itself the single thread is an echo chamber; as is any situation where only one view or opinion is allowed/accepted.

You can always simply start a thread with an opposing premise, rendering the echo chamber non-existent.

And if I make that opposing thread also a (+) then we have two competing echo chambers and no discussion between them. Too much of that already going on in this world, no need to encourage it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Problem is, if that productive conversation by necessity includes challenging the validity of the idea as presented - particularly when that idea is no more than an opinion or hot take in the first place, then disallowing such a challenge turns the thread into an echo chamber.

For example: were I to post a thread titled "Star Wars is better than Star Trek (+)", by using the (+) tag I'm indicating my opinion on this is not to be challenged in the thread and that I only want to hear from people who agree with me; and IMO that's a Very Bad Thing.

Further, "start a different thread" is not a good solution. It perhaps would be if we still had forked threads, where a challenging thread could be forked off from a (+) one and auto-linked; but those don't exist, and many people (often including me) can't be arsed to go and find another thread when there's one already going.

Compared to the problems that a + thread solves, I think the issue of only hearing from people who agree that Star Wars is better than Star Trek is pretty small potatoes.

I mean, at the end of the day, who cares if someone doesn't want to read dissent? I can already do that by... not reading posts! I skip over posts all the time. Sometimes I'm literally not interested in what someone has to say about a topic. And... that's okay. Because this is a forum about D&D, not a classroom or a governing house or a nonprofit. It's okay if I want to only talk about why Meepo should have been Neutral Good (+) or how Bards should have sneak attack (+) or if I want to know if A 16 year old Baron with twelve step siblings would allow a Wizard to polymorph him into a unicorn even though he would have to give up his title (+).

And if you disagree with my opinion, and really want me to know about it... Well, you can start your own thread. And you're right, I might not read it, and the folks who agree with me might not read it. But... that's alright! Nobody is obligated to read or reply to anyone else's posts. Lord knows I've posted things I thought were interesting and they got buried immediately!