7 ms·

I like the idea but found it a little hard to follow the arguments. Especially difficult if you follow down the cons thread, because a con of a con is a pro of

by aidos 8y ago

I like the idea but found it a little hard to follow the arguments. Especially difficult if you follow down the cons thread, because a con of a con is a pro of the original point. I worry that it won’t really result in more rational outcome but I do wish it luck. Is there anyway to downvote the points for being, for example, strawman arguments? Edit: maybe I’d parse it better if they were labelled “agree” and “disagree”?

antpls 8y ago
I would like to add that the "agree"/"disagree" or "pro"/"cons" should have a random placement (left or right) and also random colors every time the page is loaded. "Cons" shouldn't be red. The brain has several cognitive biases, such as giving more value to the last paragraphes it reads (which are usually at the right, or at the end of a text block). Cultural biases, such as colors (red for "alert","bad" for example) also influence judgements. By the way, the website doesn't look easily usable or accessible to impaired people
- bootlooped 8y ago
  Being consistent is good UX. I'm not sure the cognitive biases associated with color or left/right orientation are good enough reasons to intentionally confuse and disorient users.
  - antpls 8y ago
    When you want to ensure people are only focusing on the content, and that they stay vigilant about the debate, shouldn't there be UX to make sure people don't develop habits? All debates are unique
- Kialo 8y ago
  We thought that green = pro and red = con, is kind of universally agreed upon, no? The most common misunderstanding is the one mentioned before, a con to a con, indirectly supports the thesis, but is red. But changing that around is even more confusing. Especially when the parent to that con is then used as a pro somewhere else (and the con now having to be labeled red again). We consider pros and cons always to be relating to the parent directly above them. This allows them to be linked or copied between debates, irrespective of what debate they originally were a part of.
  - Baeocystin 8y ago
    It's also a color shift that ~1 out of 20 people don't perceive. (~8% men, ~0.5% women). Red is close to a universal color for alert/danger/warning, but green much less so for the pro. Something to consider, at least.
    - Kialo 8y ago
      We might add another color scheme, exactly for those cases. But the colors, other than for the sunburst in the beginning, aren't really essential (that's at least what our color blind team members tell us) as pros and cons are always on a particular side. We finished read and navigation accessibility (screenreaders) last month, if anyone knows a great company for testing this, please let us know.
  - aidos 8y ago
    I'm sure your team have given it a lot more thought than my drive-by assessment but a mobile constraint seems the wrong reasoning to use less clear wording. I'm sure it's something you get used to, but for me personally it jars quite heavily. So to clarify, the below is in the wrong section, right? Even if it was under cons, as I believe it should be, the X cons Y wording doesn't feel natural to me. https://www.kialo.com/macos-and-windows-should-sandbox-all-apps-16655/16655.0=16655.1-16655.9 https://www.kialo.com/macos-and-windows-should-sandbox-all-a... For posterity: >>> Getting asked for permissions by various apps (can I access the camera, can I read you photos, can I send you notifications, can I get your location, etc...) is annoying. >>> Pros: Mobile users seem to be okay with getting asked for permissions on demand, why would desktop users be any different? As an aside, how do I copy anything without having to trawl through the DOM or click the tweet button!?
    - Kialo 8y ago
      "Mobile users seem to be okay with getting asked for permissions on demand, why would desktop users be any different?" Should be a con, not a pro, as it weakens the claim above. Just drag it to the other side.
codingdave 8y ago
Agreed - while the idea has potential, it should be easier to use. Let the cognitive load of using the site be about the arguments themselves, not figuring out the flow of the app.
- Kialo 8y ago
  We are open to suggestions, but the largest cognitive load, we think, comes from reading the actual arguments and thinking along, not from the way we present them. This interface version 4.5, but we are happy to try new stuff. :)
  - antpls 8y ago
    Maybe you could propose alternative interfaces, and let each users chose the one that best fits them.
    - foota 8y ago
      You'd have to list out the pros and cons and...
      - Kialo 8y ago
        ...fortunately, we have got a tool for that ;)
        antpls 8y ago
        A parallel meta-kialo to debate about the platform itself, like the meta-exchange website, may be a nice idea
        Kialo 8y ago
        These are happening...though we should have a dedicated place for them: https://www.kialo.com/kialo-should-create-a-mobile-app-additionally-to-already-working-on-mobile-browser-6525 https://www.kialo.com/kialo-should-create-a-mobile-app-addit...
electrograv 8y ago
I tried it a while ago, then left when I realized a terrible aspect of its’ design was being abused: The creator of a debate topic gets to moderate it, which basically includes full censorship powers of any pros or cons you don’t like. It boggles my mind anyone designing Kialo would have thought that to be a good idea, or that they wouldn’t foresee it being abused regularly to nudge the tide of an argument in the preferred direction by the moderators. I’ve seen it all the time: Depending on the agenda of the moderators, one side of the argument mysteriously receives an overwhelmingly large amount of “moderation” for minor technicalities or even outright nonsensical reasons. I’ve even seen Kialo’s own confusing design you mention here used as a way to subtly suppress one side of an argument: Take any argument beyond the top level, and it’s very easy to simply claim it is a duplicate of a top level argument. For example, if I write a con of a con, moderators can remove it saying it resembled an argument they saw in a top level pro. Or if I write a pro or a pro, they can remove it by saying it’s a duplicate of its own parent! And this technique applies any number of levels deep in the tree. When this “moderation” gets applies overwhelmingly on one side of an argument, you can shift the entire balance of a Kialo argument quite easily without revealing overt corruption on the surface of your actions.
- Kialo 8y ago
  Well unfortunately, in the large debates, really many duplicates are being submitted. Take the UBI one with close to 3k unique claims. It's really hard to suggest claims that aren't already in there. If you have specific examples, please point us to them, but we are not aware of any really large (>500 claims) biased debates. The idea is for claims to be canonical for each debate, otherwise you have to rewrite them a gazillion times, including their children. That's what we have linking for. Generally speaking, if you think your claim was unfairly rejected, just hit report and we'll look into it. Having claims rejected as duplicates, happens to us too. :) If you have any suggestions, other than reporting, and roaming powerusers (which we will introduce soon), please let us know!
  - acover 8y ago
    Have you considered democratizing moderation? If many people agree that a claim is a duplicate of another claim then it's probably a duplicate or at least the community wants to treat it as such. Also instead of removal just make it less visible. With a big arrow pointing towards the main discussion. If people still choose to discuss there then they must see value in doing so. PS: thank you for making this
Kialo 8y ago
You can "mark for review" claims that aren't clear, duplicates, etc... Mind you, we aren't a site for commenting or opining, but for capturing and visualizing the reasoning for your opinions. Thus to "show/capture" your opinion, you vote the individual claims and theses (in the case of multi thesis debates, like this one: https://www.kialo.com/2027 https://www.kialo.com/2027). Then later you can select the different perspectives (opinions) and see the reasoning of different individuals, all in the same document. Works best in team environments, as public users often only vote 5 claims. We tried agree/disagree, but this became problematic on mobile browsers.
BeetleB 8y ago
>because a con of a con is a pro of the original point. Apologies for the pedantry, but no - a con of a con need not be a pro of anything.
- aidos 8y ago
  Ah sorry, "A con of a con stands indirectly of support of the original pro" — better? :-)
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >Ah sorry, "A con of a con stands indirectly of support of the original pro" — better? :-) From a logical standpoint, not at all. From a social standpoint, it often does persuade people towards the pro. However, that is a known fallacy. It is a standard tactic in persuasion. From the movie "Thank You For Smoking": Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.

by aidos 8y ago

antpls 8y ago

I would like to add that the "agree"/"disagree" or "pro"/"cons" should have a random placement (left or right) and also random colors every time the page is loaded. "Cons" shouldn't be red. The brain has several cognitive biases, such as giving more value to the last paragraphes it reads (which are usually at the right, or at the end of a text block). Cultural biases, such as colors (red for "alert","bad" for example) also influence judgements. By the way, the website doesn't look easily usable or accessible to impaired people

bootlooped 8y ago
Being consistent is good UX. I'm not sure the cognitive biases associated with color or left/right orientation are good enough reasons to intentionally confuse and disorient users.
- antpls 8y ago
  When you want to ensure people are only focusing on the content, and that they stay vigilant about the debate, shouldn't there be UX to make sure people don't develop habits? All debates are unique
Kialo 8y ago
We thought that green = pro and red = con, is kind of universally agreed upon, no? The most common misunderstanding is the one mentioned before, a con to a con, indirectly supports the thesis, but is red. But changing that around is even more confusing. Especially when the parent to that con is then used as a pro somewhere else (and the con now having to be labeled red again). We consider pros and cons always to be relating to the parent directly above them. This allows them to be linked or copied between debates, irrespective of what debate they originally were a part of.
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  It's also a color shift that ~1 out of 20 people don't perceive. (~8% men, ~0.5% women). Red is close to a universal color for alert/danger/warning, but green much less so for the pro. Something to consider, at least.
  - Kialo 8y ago
    We might add another color scheme, exactly for those cases. But the colors, other than for the sunburst in the beginning, aren't really essential (that's at least what our color blind team members tell us) as pros and cons are always on a particular side. We finished read and navigation accessibility (screenreaders) last month, if anyone knows a great company for testing this, please let us know.
- aidos 8y ago
  I'm sure your team have given it a lot more thought than my drive-by assessment but a mobile constraint seems the wrong reasoning to use less clear wording. I'm sure it's something you get used to, but for me personally it jars quite heavily. So to clarify, the below is in the wrong section, right? Even if it was under cons, as I believe it should be, the X cons Y wording doesn't feel natural to me. https://www.kialo.com/macos-and-windows-should-sandbox-all-apps-16655/16655.0=16655.1-16655.9 https://www.kialo.com/macos-and-windows-should-sandbox-all-a... For posterity: >>> Getting asked for permissions by various apps (can I access the camera, can I read you photos, can I send you notifications, can I get your location, etc...) is annoying. >>> Pros: Mobile users seem to be okay with getting asked for permissions on demand, why would desktop users be any different? As an aside, how do I copy anything without having to trawl through the DOM or click the tweet button!?
  - Kialo 8y ago
    "Mobile users seem to be okay with getting asked for permissions on demand, why would desktop users be any different?" Should be a con, not a pro, as it weakens the claim above. Just drag it to the other side.

codingdave 8y ago

Agreed - while the idea has potential, it should be easier to use. Let the cognitive load of using the site be about the arguments themselves, not figuring out the flow of the app.

Kialo 8y ago
We are open to suggestions, but the largest cognitive load, we think, comes from reading the actual arguments and thinking along, not from the way we present them. This interface version 4.5, but we are happy to try new stuff. :)
- antpls 8y ago
  Maybe you could propose alternative interfaces, and let each users chose the one that best fits them.
  - foota 8y ago
    You'd have to list out the pros and cons and...
    - Kialo 8y ago
      ...fortunately, we have got a tool for that ;)
      - antpls 8y ago
        A parallel meta-kialo to debate about the platform itself, like the meta-exchange website, may be a nice idea
        Kialo 8y ago
        These are happening...though we should have a dedicated place for them: https://www.kialo.com/kialo-should-create-a-mobile-app-additionally-to-already-working-on-mobile-browser-6525 https://www.kialo.com/kialo-should-create-a-mobile-app-addit...

electrograv 8y ago

I tried it a while ago, then left when I realized a terrible aspect of its’ design was being abused: The creator of a debate topic gets to moderate it, which basically includes full censorship powers of any pros or cons you don’t like. It boggles my mind anyone designing Kialo would have thought that to be a good idea, or that they wouldn’t foresee it being abused regularly to nudge the tide of an argument in the preferred direction by the moderators. I’ve seen it all the time: Depending on the agenda of the moderators, one side of the argument mysteriously receives an overwhelmingly large amount of “moderation” for minor technicalities or even outright nonsensical reasons. I’ve even seen Kialo’s own confusing design you mention here used as a way to subtly suppress one side of an argument: Take any argument beyond the top level, and it’s very easy to simply claim it is a duplicate of a top level argument. For example, if I write a con of a con, moderators can remove it saying it resembled an argument they saw in a top level pro. Or if I write a pro or a pro, they can remove it by saying it’s a duplicate of its own parent! And this technique applies any number of levels deep in the tree. When this “moderation” gets applies overwhelmingly on one side of an argument, you can shift the entire balance of a Kialo argument quite easily without revealing overt corruption on the surface of your actions.

Kialo 8y ago
Well unfortunately, in the large debates, really many duplicates are being submitted. Take the UBI one with close to 3k unique claims. It's really hard to suggest claims that aren't already in there. If you have specific examples, please point us to them, but we are not aware of any really large (>500 claims) biased debates. The idea is for claims to be canonical for each debate, otherwise you have to rewrite them a gazillion times, including their children. That's what we have linking for. Generally speaking, if you think your claim was unfairly rejected, just hit report and we'll look into it. Having claims rejected as duplicates, happens to us too. :) If you have any suggestions, other than reporting, and roaming powerusers (which we will introduce soon), please let us know!
- acover 8y ago
  Have you considered democratizing moderation? If many people agree that a claim is a duplicate of another claim then it's probably a duplicate or at least the community wants to treat it as such. Also instead of removal just make it less visible. With a big arrow pointing towards the main discussion. If people still choose to discuss there then they must see value in doing so. PS: thank you for making this

Kialo 8y ago

You can "mark for review" claims that aren't clear, duplicates, etc... Mind you, we aren't a site for commenting or opining, but for capturing and visualizing the reasoning for your opinions. Thus to "show/capture" your opinion, you vote the individual claims and theses (in the case of multi thesis debates, like this one: https://www.kialo.com/2027 https://www.kialo.com/2027). Then later you can select the different perspectives (opinions) and see the reasoning of different individuals, all in the same document. Works best in team environments, as public users often only vote 5 claims. We tried agree/disagree, but this became problematic on mobile browsers.

BeetleB 8y ago

>because a con of a con is a pro of the original point. Apologies for the pedantry, but no - a con of a con need not be a pro of anything.

aidos 8y ago
Ah sorry, "A con of a con stands indirectly of support of the original pro" — better? :-)
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Ah sorry, "A con of a con stands indirectly of support of the original pro" — better? :-) From a logical standpoint, not at all. From a social standpoint, it often does persuade people towards the pro. However, that is a known fallacy. It is a standard tactic in persuasion. From the movie "Thank You For Smoking": Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.