Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8944533" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>I feel the need to reiterate what [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] mentioned previously, which is that the practical value of an opinion is not the sole purview of the person who starts the thread. <em>Everyone</em> gets to judge every idea on its own merits, and come to their individual conclusions as to how much value (practical or otherwise) those opinions have. For one person to mandate that dissenting opinions are not welcome robs those other posters/lurkers of a chance to be exposed to viewpoints that they might find valuable, even if they don't agree with them.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, the idea that the person who starts the thread gets to set the parameters for the discussion is a view that certainly has some merits to it, but which also has some drawbacks. Allowing a conversation to evolve and follow its own path can easily lead to new insights, ideas, and conclusions which are outside of the initial scope. While there's certainly room to say that such tangents should be moved to their own thread, those tangents have to be introduced in the first place, which is less likely to happen if the conversation isn't allowed to grow past its opening premise.</p><p></p><p>Insofar as bad actors go, that's an occupational hazard where discourse is concerned. Leaving aside that the label of "sealioning" can itself be thrown about disingenuously (and I say that as someone who's been wrongfully, and I believe maliciously, accused of such), the nature of a (+) thread has little to do with keeping bad actors at bay, because the guidelines it imposes have little to do with interpersonal conduct; it's more about keeping the topic within constraints than about how you act. The expectation of respect is universal in that regard (and likewise proves universally disappointing when it doesn't happen), hence why standard (i.e. non-plus) threads on EN World are no more exempt from the "don't be a jerk" rule than (+) threads are; it's just that the latter are also moderated for disagreement with the premise.</p><p></p><p>Now, there's certainly something to be said for only wanting posts that reply to the premise raised in the OP; if the initial poster isn't interested in digressions, then I can see them having no use for such things. But even leaving aside that other people might, I don't want to assign motives to people who disagree with a particular thread's premise; just because they think otherwise doesn't mean that they think they're entitled to a debate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8944533, member: 8461"] I feel the need to reiterate what [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] mentioned previously, which is that the practical value of an opinion is not the sole purview of the person who starts the thread. [i]Everyone[/i] gets to judge every idea on its own merits, and come to their individual conclusions as to how much value (practical or otherwise) those opinions have. For one person to mandate that dissenting opinions are not welcome robs those other posters/lurkers of a chance to be exposed to viewpoints that they might find valuable, even if they don't agree with them. Likewise, the idea that the person who starts the thread gets to set the parameters for the discussion is a view that certainly has some merits to it, but which also has some drawbacks. Allowing a conversation to evolve and follow its own path can easily lead to new insights, ideas, and conclusions which are outside of the initial scope. While there's certainly room to say that such tangents should be moved to their own thread, those tangents have to be introduced in the first place, which is less likely to happen if the conversation isn't allowed to grow past its opening premise. Insofar as bad actors go, that's an occupational hazard where discourse is concerned. Leaving aside that the label of "sealioning" can itself be thrown about disingenuously (and I say that as someone who's been wrongfully, and I believe maliciously, accused of such), the nature of a (+) thread has little to do with keeping bad actors at bay, because the guidelines it imposes have little to do with interpersonal conduct; it's more about keeping the topic within constraints than about how you act. The expectation of respect is universal in that regard (and likewise proves universally disappointing when it doesn't happen), hence why standard (i.e. non-plus) threads on EN World are no more exempt from the "don't be a jerk" rule than (+) threads are; it's just that the latter are also moderated for disagreement with the premise. Now, there's certainly something to be said for only wanting posts that reply to the premise raised in the OP; if the initial poster isn't interested in digressions, then I can see them having no use for such things. But even leaving aside that other people might, I don't want to assign motives to people who disagree with a particular thread's premise; just because they think otherwise doesn't mean that they think they're entitled to a debate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles
Top