Thought Experiments aren't Demands
90% of the time if you ask someone to articulate themselves they either choke or recite 'bad idea is bad: no hypothetical explanation you don't deserve it". The whole point of thought experiments is to explore, there is no right or wrong, there is no winning, it's hypothetical. There seems to be a lot of insecurities for what is condoned discussion, most of it directed at nerfing or buffing a champion since it's the only thing protected by circle jerks and bandwagons.
It feels frustrating to get mass activity to only see discussion boil down to: "yes I agree". Or it devolves into a civil war of good and evil, each side thinking they're righteous and the other harbingers of Satan himself.
If you're not with or against something you're even more shit out of luck. What's so wrong with being impartial? Maybe problematic champions could be less frustrating to play against by now if the forum vendetta wasn't focused on trashing them to avenge their KDA. Shutting down conversations does not resolve issues, it only further entrenches the opposition; the issue remains and now less people who need to hear the differences in opinion have deleted their only format to hear it.
This isn't all doom and gloom, I like the forums here, I've been on boards that had rampant bullying when people disagreed with each other, the unpopular side would get shit on, cross-hair on their back for future posts, though I've only seen positive fame on here so far, maybe the former is hidden.
I would ask what would it take to get people to open up more broadly, but does it just boil down to fear of being wrong? That's a tough nut to crack.
