4 ms·

I have 2 issues, first is that it looks more like a popularity contest. Popupar points of view get propelled at the top where they get more exposure and get all

by ajnin 8y ago

I have 2 issues, first is that it looks more like a popularity contest. Popupar points of view get propelled at the top where they get more exposure and get all the discussion and votes, like on any other discussion site with threads. Second, there is not "yes, but ..." answer, you are forced to take sides, for example to the hypothetical question "should drugs be legalized ?", I'd probably want to aswer "yes, but regulated". Not sure how to express that.

avodonosov 8y ago
I think the feature currently is simply removal of duplicated points.
- username3 8y ago
  They need a spectrum of positions.
  - Kialo 8y ago
    We do have a spectrum of positions, via the Perspective feature. There you can see how others see an issue.
ibeckermayer 8y ago
>it looks more like a popularity contest. Right, is what is rationally justified decided by what is democratically popular? The best solution would allow for customizable curation, where different systems of authority and checks/balances on that authority could be tried, with different participants. Equally-weighted voting is obviously not the solution for promoting rational debate, since in almost all domains there are a select few with much more knowledge than all others.
- Kialo 8y ago
  >Right, is what is rationally justified decided by what is democratically popular? The best solution would allow for customizable curation, where different systems of authority and checks/balances on that authority could be tried, with different participants. We do have perspectives, where you can see the votes of individuals and will introduce a measure to show you the votes that agree / disagree with the main thesis. That is the best auto splitting of votes we could come up with. Happy about better suggestions. Weighing voting brings a whole new set of problems. But agree, the ALL votes perspectives, isn't really that great. The reason being that often then many votes there end up in the middle (2), but the interesting bit being what the sides(0+4) are thinking. See here: https://www.kialo.com/should-the-us-adopt-stricter-gun-controls-3346/3346.0=3346.1/=3346.1/voters https://www.kialo.com/should-the-us-adopt-stricter-gun-contr...
Kialo 8y ago
When you start a debate, voting is normally not enabled. Voting on our site is different, we explicitly ask for the impact a claim has. But we agree, the total average of votes, with public discussions, isn't very useful, not because popularity contest, BUT, if we assume a fair split of society on a topic, because the thesis will be voted two = middle and most claims too. People basically cancel each other out and you end up with a no strong opinion either way for most claims. Which is boring. You could add standard deviation, but that would still not be great. Thus we are going to introduce a way to visualize votes, by separating them into cohorts. We had perspective tagging, but that has it's own set of features. So really many topics don't have middle ground, the debate IS binary: Is climate change real / man-made. Should abortion be legal. Is there a God. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry/adopt. If you made these into multis, not much is gained. And then, exactly for your example about drug legislation we have a multi theses discussion, check it out :) and you can add new theses or claims: https://www.kialo.com/what-is-the-best-drug-regulation-system-2027 https://www.kialo.com/what-is-the-best-drug-regulation-syste...

by ajnin 8y ago

avodonosov 8y ago

I think the feature currently is simply removal of duplicated points.

username3 8y ago
They need a spectrum of positions.
- Kialo 8y ago
  We do have a spectrum of positions, via the Perspective feature. There you can see how others see an issue.

ibeckermayer 8y ago

>it looks more like a popularity contest. Right, is what is rationally justified decided by what is democratically popular? The best solution would allow for customizable curation, where different systems of authority and checks/balances on that authority could be tried, with different participants. Equally-weighted voting is obviously not the solution for promoting rational debate, since in almost all domains there are a select few with much more knowledge than all others.

Kialo 8y ago
>Right, is what is rationally justified decided by what is democratically popular? The best solution would allow for customizable curation, where different systems of authority and checks/balances on that authority could be tried, with different participants. We do have perspectives, where you can see the votes of individuals and will introduce a measure to show you the votes that agree / disagree with the main thesis. That is the best auto splitting of votes we could come up with. Happy about better suggestions. Weighing voting brings a whole new set of problems. But agree, the ALL votes perspectives, isn't really that great. The reason being that often then many votes there end up in the middle (2), but the interesting bit being what the sides(0+4) are thinking. See here: https://www.kialo.com/should-the-us-adopt-stricter-gun-controls-3346/3346.0=3346.1/=3346.1/voters https://www.kialo.com/should-the-us-adopt-stricter-gun-contr...

Kialo 8y ago

When you start a debate, voting is normally not enabled. Voting on our site is different, we explicitly ask for the impact a claim has. But we agree, the total average of votes, with public discussions, isn't very useful, not because popularity contest, BUT, if we assume a fair split of society on a topic, because the thesis will be voted two = middle and most claims too. People basically cancel each other out and you end up with a no strong opinion either way for most claims. Which is boring. You could add standard deviation, but that would still not be great. Thus we are going to introduce a way to visualize votes, by separating them into cohorts. We had perspective tagging, but that has it's own set of features. So really many topics don't have middle ground, the debate IS binary: Is climate change real / man-made. Should abortion be legal. Is there a God. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry/adopt. If you made these into multis, not much is gained. And then, exactly for your example about drug legislation we have a multi theses discussion, check it out :) and you can add new theses or claims: https://www.kialo.com/what-is-the-best-drug-regulation-system-2027 https://www.kialo.com/what-is-the-best-drug-regulation-syste...