Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 8944739" data-attributes="member: 2013">Initially I read it this way, but I have since come around to the following (though I don't think it was well-articulated in the original post there).Premises:&quot;I think WotC put objectionable, racist content in GAZ10&quot;&quot;I think it's important to do SOMETHING about it.&quot;Question for Discussion:&quot;What should I do about it? Here's a nine-point list I've come up with to start the discussion.&quot;You may not agree with the premises, but that's the point of a &quot;+&quot; thread - to set a common &quot;starting point&quot; from which a rational discussion may advance. This is particularly needed when the premises may be subjective so that the thread can stay on-topic. Arguing over whether or not it's worth doing something about, or whether the content is objectionable isn't what the poster is looking to discuss. (Disclosure: I had no idea what a + thread was until this whole thing came up.)Instead, it's figuring out the &quot;what should I do about it?&quot; piece. Discussing why the various points on the list are good/bad ideas (and why they are), whether it's worth dropping or adding points are all fine - they contribute to the discussion of &quot;what should I do about it?&quot; I imagine if eventually the ideas are shown to be &quot;bad ideas&quot; the discussion doesn't have to stop at &quot;nothing&quot; - instead the discussion could turn from &quot;none of the original ideas you posted are good ones&quot; to &quot;let's find some new ideas that are good.&quot;I suppose that is something of an echo chamber, but if you've already hashed out the subjective questions (&quot;is this content bad&quot; and &quot;is it bad enough I think I should do something about it&quot;) there is something to be said to wanting to start threads where these don't have to be relitigated every time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 8944739, member: 2013"] Initially I read it this way, but I have since come around to the following (though I don't think it was well-articulated in the original post there). Premises: "I think WotC put objectionable, racist content in GAZ10" "I think it's important to do SOMETHING about it." Question for Discussion: "What should I do about it? Here's a nine-point list I've come up with to start the discussion." You may not agree with the premises, but that's the point of a "+" thread - to set a common "starting point" from which a rational discussion may advance. This is particularly needed when the premises may be subjective so that the thread can stay on-topic. Arguing over whether or not it's worth doing something about, or whether the content is objectionable isn't what the poster is looking to discuss. (Disclosure: I had no idea what a + thread was until this whole thing came up.) Instead, it's figuring out the "what should I do about it?" piece. Discussing why the various points on the list are good/bad ideas (and why they are), whether it's worth dropping or adding points are all fine - they contribute to the discussion of "what should I do about it?" I imagine if eventually the ideas are shown to be "bad ideas" the discussion doesn't have to stop at "nothing" - instead the discussion could turn from "none of the original ideas you posted are good ones" to "let's find some new ideas that are good." I suppose that is something of an echo chamber, but if you've already hashed out the subjective questions ("is this content bad" and "is it bad enough I think I should do something about it") there is something to be said to wanting to start threads where these don't have to be relitigated every time. [/QUOTE]

Verification