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.