I've edited out "frame challenge" because policy is not to signal that since it is too jargony. – Rubiksmoose 5 hours ago
@Rubiksmoose - Good to know. In general should I still be indicating that I'm breaking away from the premise, or are we just dropping that habit altogether? – Alex 5 hours ago
Excellent question, I think that the best policy is just to signal it with more colloquial language, but signalling itself still is good. (That is just my impression so I could be wrong) – Rubiksmoose 5 hours ago
If the real world, in real life, and in real work places, when you make bad 'policy' you open the door for petty bureaucrats and poor mid-level managers to use it as a hammer for no good reason, because it happens to be there lying around. I think most of us have run into this at least once in our real lives.
That is the dynamic that is going on here with the ill-advised "initiative" to try to ban the perfectly useful term, frame challenge, which has in fact a meta to define it. In this case, a sincere and helpful user is falling into the trap that mid-level managers and bureaucrats fall into time and again with "it's that rules ... really" when in fact is was bad policy to begin with. It can happen to any of us, and IMO this user was set up by Bad Policy to be moved to make this comment.
There is no value added in exchanges like this. Can we please not villify the use of the term frame challenge? I objected to the policy then, and I am objecting to it again. The term is useful, and we have a meta that explains what it is.