3 ms·
It's definitely interesting, but it also comes with what seems like a significant tradeoff whose effects may be difficult to anticipate: initial posters are giv
by westoncb 4y ago
It's definitely interesting, but it also comes with what seems like a significant tradeoff whose effects may be difficult to anticipate: initial posters are given a big advantage in terms of control over the conversation.
But maybe it won't be such a big deal in practice: in a way, it's kind of like enforcing a certain amount of politeness when conversing on someone else's turf; you've entered their 'house' and are expected to play by their rules while there.
On the other hand, when it comes to debate of any kind, there always has to be one party who gets priority over the other and can tailor the appearance of the outcome of the debate to a certain extent.
TBH, I'm mostly very curious what kind of behavioral dynamics would emerge around this—it's probably not possible to infer too much in the abstract. In any case, an interesting idea.
- DoItToMe81 4y agoIt will be an enormous deal in practice. Most people are not attracted to the idea of their conversations being shut off by people speaking in bad faith, but people interested in arguing in bad faith are inherently attracted to these designs.