# Suggestion: support "plus threads"



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2016)

One problem I've been having over recent years is how ENWorld tolerates the behavior where posters question the very premise of a thread.

There's nothing wrong with this, and most of it is done in good faith.

But it is a definite problem when you want to discuss an area (with the game) where you percieve there to be a problem, but where you find yourself mostly talking about whether there is a problem at all, rather than solutions to said problem. Having your threads go from constructive and positive, to negative places where all you do is defend your initial premise is a real drain.

Therefore I submit as a possible solution to add moderator support for "plus threads".

To take a recent example subject, here's a thread topic title in two versions:

"What do I need to do to make xp for gold work"

"[+] What do I need to do to make xp for gold work"

The difference is, that in the second version, posts that say "Well, gold for xp doesn't really work [for reasons], do this instead" are considered *off-topic* and are moderated as such.

The thread starter's intent is probably not "open season in talking me out of playing the game the way I'm planning". The thread starter's intent probably "if you have constructive advice that helps me do this thing, lets hear them - otherwise please post elsewhere".

This suggestion assumes most threads won't be started as plus threads, and thus won't mean extra mod work. If nobody percieves a need for them, there won't be any extra work at all!

On the other hand, if the mods start seeing lots of plus threads, it should tell them the discussion climate probably needs to be moderated in general.


Regards,
Zapp

PS. Let me clearly state that I don't know if rpg.net (where I've lifted the notation from) has an official definition of how they use "plus threads". This suggestion is based merely upon my interpretation of the concept.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 8, 2016)

It's something I've considered before in different forms - answer threads, for example, where someone asks a question and the responses should be (attempts at) factual answers. I think Straight Dope handles that well - one of its forums, there's a rule where the initial post must be a question seeking a factual answer (rather than a debate) and responses must be factual answers. I think that's going too far for us, but a category of threads like that might not be a bad idea. I'm tempted to give it a try.

So the [+] notation means support/factual - i.e. stay on topic, address what the poster asks.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 9, 2016)

I like the concept, but I think the notation might need more brainstorming.  A plus generally indicates something extra.  To me, at first glance a plus would actually imply that the post is asking for wider discussion, esoteric concepts, and outside-the-box discussion of the topic; the exact opposite of the direct responses you're looking for. 

Also, visually, the [+] looks like a file system with the option to expand sub-folders, again implying a wide variety of responses (each with their own discussion).  It's also impossible to search for threads that include [+].  And there's a risk the brackets could start screwing with code.

I would suggest something like DAO, meaning "Direct Answers Only", as a better indicator.  Or maybe DQTC: Don't Question The Concept.


----------



## LordEntrails (Dec 9, 2016)

Whichever method might be tried, it needs to be understood what it means, and probably the symbol or letters need to stand out and be a link to what they mean.

What about the various thread icons? How about one for this idea?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 10, 2016)

Thread icons aren't supported by all apps, skins, etc. It needs to be something visible however you're viewing it. The only 100% guarantee is the thread title itself.


----------



## pdzoch (Dec 10, 2016)

Perhaps a color code for the thread title font?  Or a secondary prefix?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 12, 2016)

Deset Gled said:


> I like the concept, but I think the notation might need more brainstorming.  A plus generally indicates something extra.  To me, at first glance a plus would actually imply that the post is asking for wider discussion, esoteric concepts, and outside-the-box discussion of the topic; the exact opposite of the direct responses you're looking for.
> 
> Also, visually, the [+] looks like a file system with the option to expand sub-folders, again implying a wide variety of responses (each with their own discussion).  It's also impossible to search for threads that include [+].  And there's a risk the brackets could start screwing with code.
> 
> I would suggest something like DAO, meaning "Direct Answers Only", as a better indicator.  Or maybe DQTC: Don't Question The Concept.



I cannot know for certain but it certainly appears to be working fine over at RPG.NET (a rather major rpg forum) without any of the issues you bring up.

My guess is the plus stands for "positive"


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 12, 2016)

LordEntrails said:


> Whichever method might be tried, it needs to be understood what it means



I agree completely. 

I tried to find some kind of definition over at rpg.net but failed, so I certainly feel the frustration you wish to avoid.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 13, 2017)

I _really_ wish the powers that be would reconsider adding support for starting threads where attacking the premise of the thread itself gives you official mod red text. 

Take a recent example: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?604695-Multiple-Concentration

You'll note that the thread immediately starts discussing "is multiple concentration a good thing" with plenty of posters taking the right to figuratively take a dump on the original poster's question. That was *not* what the OP was trying to start a discussion on.

There is a very strong hivemind present at ENWorld and anyone wishing to explore beyond the limits imposed by the game design have nowhere safe to discuss. This is really starting to drive me nuts.

Please _please_ add "plus" threads (and moderation attention) to show the community you're welcome to ENWorld even if you, as in this example, want to play a game with two concentration spells up at the same time.

Please let ENWorld be a place where I can start a thread on "How do I add NNN" where I don't have to spend 90% of my time discussing why I should or should not add it, essentially having to defend starting the stread.

Instead I can spend 90% of my time discussing how to actually go about adding it with likeminded posters. You know, constructive discussion from the OPs point of view. A community where if you feel it is a bad idea to add NNN - and you really must say so - you have to start a new thread to discuss that, since it is a _completely different subject_.

Thank you.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2017)

You’ve been posting in this thread for over a year now, and in that time I know you’ve seen me use [+] threads, because you’ve posted in them. You don’t need to constantly explain the concept to me over and over again. I get it. 

Start using them if you want to. Until then the discussion is rather moot. I’ll adjust moderation as needed, but bearing in mind it’s mainly just me, I’m not looking to drastically increase my workload.


----------

