4 ms·

Online discussions are crap. Quickly derailed by well-meaning or not well-meaning people, the original question or discussion is sidetracked by something more i

by nodata 13y ago

Online discussions are crap. Quickly derailed by well-meaning or not well-meaning people, the original question or discussion is sidetracked by something more interesting, or irrelevant. I'd like to see structured evidence-based discussions that aim for a conclusion without allowing people to talk in circles. Anecdotal evidence would not be allowed. Anything off-topic would not be allowed. HN gets derailed the whole time by something tangentially related to the original posting, and I guess people like that: but we should also aim for communities where structured discussion is possible. Something more debate-like perhaps.

doorhammer 13y ago
Personally, I don't want every forum interaction I have to be a formalized debate, but that's really just my perspective and preference. Again, my preference: I come to forums for the side-tracks and interesting derailments, most of the time. It's sort of like going to wikipedia. Most of the time my enjoyment of the interaction isn't exactly about the topic, but in what other things interesting people bring to the table that I wouldn't have thought of. That said, I think there's definitely a place for debate-style forums, but I wonder how much that would be enforced by the tooling so much as by the tooling giving the user-base a lot of leverage and dynamic control in the way of enforcing the culture that is intended by the forum. In that space, I think a lot of these tools are trying to go down that path. Discourse has forking and branching for going off topic without derailing, and Vanilla has free form tagging that allows users to vote for things in a way that's consistent with user culture. I've never used vanilla, but I'm assuming you could also use the gamification aspect to promote users that interact in a way that's consistent with the interaction-style that the culture dictates, and maybe give them the ability to further or more staunchly enforce the culture (points/badges/whatever else for providing good sources, staying on topic, giving notably clear explanations, etc, etc). I also think that kind of thing gets difficult, and is as much about really being careful about outlining your expectations as anything, as well as adapting as there are new needs. I think of Stackoverflow when I'm talking about this, or on HN, where post titles will be changed sometimes, in a way that seems to adhere to the letter of the rules, but not the spirit, and sometimes seems to remove information that's relevant. My two cents anyway.
eksith 13y ago
Your requirements make discussions not be discussions. This is how discussions happen in the real world as well. We're not in Parliament or Congress where specific laws and topics are to be discussed (and get filibustered anyway). HN topics don't get "derailed" with tangents since threads exist for just that contingency. While other things may get discussed, I think the majority revolve around the topic at hand. I'm not sure I'd like to participate in your "ideal" discussion forum. It doesn't sound fun at all.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The way to try it would be to let thread owners pick the rules that were in force. That way you can have a free flowing conversation in one thread and a serious exploration in another. It also allows room for people to develop a reputation for applying moderation in an even handed fashion (without requiring a reputation to get started).
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    You would have constant moderation dramas though, since you would need moderators going over every thread and finding stuff that was off topic or letting users flag it. Then you would have a lot of disagreement about whether something was on topic or not.
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      I would do it so that the thread owner was the moderator. There could still be some baseline site rules, but each thread would be up to the owner to look after (I suppose it would be nice to allow helpers). It should still be possible to open threads without any extra rules. Reddit sort of does this, at the subreddit level instead of the thread level. But it also sort of isn't a discussion site anymore, it is something else.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - 13y ago

by nodata 13y ago

doorhammer 13y ago

Personally, I don't want every forum interaction I have to be a formalized debate, but that's really just my perspective and preference. Again, my preference: I come to forums for the side-tracks and interesting derailments, most of the time. It's sort of like going to wikipedia. Most of the time my enjoyment of the interaction isn't exactly about the topic, but in what other things interesting people bring to the table that I wouldn't have thought of. That said, I think there's definitely a place for debate-style forums, but I wonder how much that would be enforced by the tooling so much as by the tooling giving the user-base a lot of leverage and dynamic control in the way of enforcing the culture that is intended by the forum. In that space, I think a lot of these tools are trying to go down that path. Discourse has forking and branching for going off topic without derailing, and Vanilla has free form tagging that allows users to vote for things in a way that's consistent with user culture. I've never used vanilla, but I'm assuming you could also use the gamification aspect to promote users that interact in a way that's consistent with the interaction-style that the culture dictates, and maybe give them the ability to further or more staunchly enforce the culture (points/badges/whatever else for providing good sources, staying on topic, giving notably clear explanations, etc, etc). I also think that kind of thing gets difficult, and is as much about really being careful about outlining your expectations as anything, as well as adapting as there are new needs. I think of Stackoverflow when I'm talking about this, or on HN, where post titles will be changed sometimes, in a way that seems to adhere to the letter of the rules, but not the spirit, and sometimes seems to remove information that's relevant. My two cents anyway.

eksith 13y ago

Your requirements make discussions not be discussions. This is how discussions happen in the real world as well. We're not in Parliament or Congress where specific laws and topics are to be discussed (and get filibustered anyway). HN topics don't get "derailed" with tangents since threads exist for just that contingency. While other things may get discussed, I think the majority revolve around the topic at hand. I'm not sure I'd like to participate in your "ideal" discussion forum. It doesn't sound fun at all.

maxerickson 13y ago
The way to try it would be to let thread owners pick the rules that were in force. That way you can have a free flowing conversation in one thread and a serious exploration in another. It also allows room for people to develop a reputation for applying moderation in an even handed fashion (without requiring a reputation to get started).
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  You would have constant moderation dramas though, since you would need moderators going over every thread and finding stuff that was off topic or letting users flag it. Then you would have a lot of disagreement about whether something was on topic or not.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    I would do it so that the thread owner was the moderator. There could still be some baseline site rules, but each thread would be up to the owner to look after (I suppose it would be nice to allow helpers). It should still be possible to open threads without any extra rules. Reddit sort of does this, at the subreddit level instead of the thread level. But it also sort of isn't a discussion site anymore, it is something else.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 13y ago