3 ms·
I’ve been sketching out ideas for a tool that tries to solve the online discussion problem, too. The conclusion I have come to is that you need to actually have
by dcow 6y ago
I’ve been sketching out ideas for a tool that tries to solve the online discussion problem, too. The conclusion I have come to is that you need to actually have a minimum word requirement in addition to a limit. I like the idea of rounds but have always felt structured debate was easily game-able. I think there also needs to be some form of moderation, whether managed or community, whereby interested volunteers can help guide the course of the argument if it starts devolving. I would love to try this tool but I don't use twitter ):
- chrisco255 6y agoDitto. If there is no email sign-up I will not sign up.
- Fogest 6y agoThis project in discussion is using Twitter so you do require an email and more.
- Joeri 6y agoI’ve been thinking for a while along similar lines for a discussion platform, but came to a different conclusion. I think the trick is turning weakness into strength. People really want to fight, they want to make bold statements, and they don’t want to take the time to read or write long nuanced arguments. What if you made something that leaned into that? I was thinking about a CMV sort of site where you can tweet a reply to a view in support or in disapproval, sorting automatically in two halves of the page, and people can like those tweets. It would allow the strongest pro/con arguments from either side to bubble to the top, and the short length of a tweet and inability to chain multiple together would require succinct and single arguments. The site would rank views by recent replies, which would reward controversy with attention and draw out more responses.
- searchableguy 6y ago> The site would rank views by recent replies, which would reward controversy with attention and draw out more responses How will you stop it from becoming 4chan in a different layout?
- flir 6y agoAt this point I'd be much more interested in a tool designed by someone who was an expert in dispute resolution - a relationship counsellor, say. Something that emphasizes points of similarity to build on them, not points of difference to amplify them. "Debate" is entirely the wrong model. It's about winners and losers. How about a tool for dialogue?
- dcow 6y agoYup, I’m interested in the policy direction. Assuming a good tool existed, could we use such a tool to drive policy decisions? I think part of the solution is reconnecting people with a channel for political agency.
- sethammons 6y agoLook into “non-violent communication.” From their website: > Through the practice of NVC, we can learn to clarify what we are observing, what emotions we are feeling, what values we want to live by, and what we want to ask of ourselves and others. We will no longer need to use the language of blame, judgment or domination. We can experience the deep pleasure of contributing to each others' well being. I’m most definitely not a self-help book person. A colleague and friend at work introduced me to the book. I found it very convincing for a way to approach communication in a way that tries to make all parties better.
- flir 6y agoThe Quakers have very interesting models for community-wide communication, decision-making and dispute resolution, too. Then there's the agile retrospective model we're probably all familiar with. There's lots of potential for someone smarter than me to build more useful communication tools.