Actual Discussion

219 readers

1 users here now

Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.

Welcome to Actual Discussion!

DO:

Be civil. This doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge people, just don't be a dick.
Upvote interesting or well-articulated points, even if you may not agree.
Be prepared to back up any claims you make with an unbiased source.
Be willing to be wrong and append your initial post to show a changed view.
Admit when you are incorrect or spoke poorly. Upvote when you see others correct themselves or change their mind.
Feel free to be a "Devil's Advocate". You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points.
Discuss hot-button issues.
Add humour, and be creative! Dry writing isn't super fun to read or discuss.

DO NOT:

Call people names or label people. We fight ideas, not people here.
Ask for sources, and then not respond to the person providing them.
Mindlessly downvote people you disagree with. We only downvote people that do not add to the discussion.
Be a bot, spam, or engage in self-promotion.
Duplicate posts from within the last month unless new information is surfaced on the topic.
Strawman.
Expect that personal experience or morals are a substitute for proof.
Exaggerate. Not everything is a genocide, and not everyone slightly to the right of you is a Nazi.
Copy an entire article in your post body. It's just messy. Link to it and maybe summarize if needed.

For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: [email protected]

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

(OTHER) How are we doing? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This community has been around for a few months now. How do we feel about it? Are things working out? Any plans for further growing the community?

This is one of the topics I’ve been thinking a lot about quite a bit for the past few years (i.e. how to set up a community that values discussions with diverse viewpoints), so I thought I’d share some of my thoughts in relation to what I’m seeing here.

I think such a community necessarily needs to be a full self-contained instance, or else you’ll get very little activity. Think about how these discussions usually start. Someone posts an article/meme/question/etc, a few people show up and comment with similar thoughts about it worded in slightly different ways, then another shows up and goes against the grain, everyone dogpiles on them, and that’s when the real discussion starts. Very rarely do people go out of their way to ask “what do you think of X controversial topic?” And even if you do, that only leads to a very high level discussion that very quickly gets stale. If you get discussion in the context of specific events, then these discussions can be grounded in reality and lead to more unique context-dependent takes each time it comes up.
Regarding upvotes/downvotes: as stated in the rules, they should be used to measure whether a post/comment is a positive contribution to the discussion rather than the number of people who agree with your viewpoint. I don’t believe there’s a way to actually enforce this with the voting system we currently have, but I also think a relatively simple change can fix it. It will require a bit of coding.

My proposal is a voting system with two votes: one to say that you agree/disagree, and another to say good/bad contribution. With this system, you can easily see if someone only thinks posts they agree with are good contributions, and you can use that information to calculate a total score that weighs their votes accordingly. It’s also small enough of a change that I think most people won’t have a problem figuring it out.

Thoughts?

Also, thank you Ace for taking the initiative in creating this place. It makes me happy to see that others want to see this change too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Our largest issue is actually getting replies instead of drive-by-downvotes.

That's exactly what I mean in point #1. People rarely go out of their way for an in depth discussion. It just happens upon you, and the way this community is currently set up doesn't really allow for that. You have to come here deliberately looking for this discussion.

I don't think we'll ever get through to users that a downvote isn't a "disagree button" to many people.

I don't believe this is possible at all. Hence the proposal for a two vote system, because that allows you to easily filter out those who treat everything as an agree/disagree button.

Another benefit that I didn't mention is that this also allows you to sort/filter in more interesting ways. E.g. Sort by diversity where each subsequent comment has minimal overlap with previously seen comments in terms of the set of people agreeing with it, or filter to only show comments I agree/disagree with. It also lets you analyse the distribution of opinions in the overall community and take action to correct things if it ever skews too far in one direction or another.

Running a full instance is indeed a lot of work. I don't have time to do it myself either, but if anyone else wants to do it, I would be very happy to help.