Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discussion Moderation #4

Closed
WebsByTodd opened this issue Feb 3, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@WebsByTodd
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 3, 2017

The currently proposed method is that discussion will be hidden until you open it, and article authors will have full control over moderating their discussion sections. @nwmngt Disagrees:

I don't like this, as I mentioned before. I think this can lead to abuse. Regardless of what the discussion section looks like, or what its purpose is, I as an author can still block out opinions or discussion based on my whims or because somebody disagrees with me.

Maybe you can balance this with the transparency (all actions by users can be seen by all other users)... But let's say someone is banned from a discussion because of something petty. Where do you warn other users "Hey this guy's being a real jerk! Here's why!!" if takes or discussions are so separate? Maybe we can have a "soft" moderating system that doesn't allow bans or drastic actions that someone can abuse.

I think this warrants further discussion. There are many discussion systems to choose from. A reputation based system like Stack Overflow. A Wikipedia-like editing system will full version history for action transparency. Others?

@nedtwigg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 4, 2017

Here's how I see the value that mytake.org can provide: 70% authorship tool, 30% newsfeed of opinons which challenge the reader's assumptions, and 0% discussion.

There are tons of discussion sites, and people use them to pat their comrades on the back and to yell at their opponents. Why would ours be any different?

If people want to discuss a take, they can do so on Facebook or Twitter already. In fact, it would be better for mytake's organic spread if people discuss their takes on Facebook or Twitter than if they discuss them on mytake. We're not trying to build a network - we're trying to help thoughtful material thrive on the existing networks, and to encourage people to create their own thoughtful material.

In my opinion, the only reason to have a discussion feature at all is to better serve the authorship tool objective.

Our target users are not used to publishing public documents. They are used to getting pats on the back from their facebook tribes, and unfriending the people who disagree with them.

If you write a post, and it gets shared with a 1,000 people, then there will be

  1. readers you've never met who have something helpful and constructive to say to you
  2. readers you've never met who are trying to be constructive but end up hurting your feelings
  3. trolls whose only goal is to hurt your ego and build up their own

By making discussions private, we make the platform dissatisfying to trolls. By allowing the author full control of their own discussions, we let people get whatever depth of feedback they want - the full firehose or a gentler version.

If your goal is not to write or read, but instead to discuss, you can do that already on facebook and twitter. And we would prefer that people do that on facebook/twitter/reddit, because it's less for us to build and more organic spread.

@rekkenmark

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 4, 2017

I like Ned's point. Let people share the article on social media and they can argue it out there. This keeps the trolls/haters out of the platform itself, and it always stays pure/effective--doesn't get poisoned. I guess that would basically mean "no discussion on the site," which would take out the need for moderation.

@WebsByTodd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Feb 4, 2017

In the pitch we have:

Discussion will be hidden until you open it, and article authors will have full control over moderating their discussion sections.

Is it possible to have private discussion? How would one apply to or get invited to the discussion? If the answer is, click this link and see the full discussion, then it's not really a private discussion.

If our discussion system is more like a "private messaging" system, the opportunity for abuse still exists, and synergy is limited.

How about a discussion system that only allows users to contribute to the discussion with a Take their their own?

@nedtwigg

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 5, 2017

Here's a mockup:

+------------------------------------+
| Title               by Kate Smith  |
|                                    |
| Words words words.                 |
| *evidence*                         |
| Words words words.                 |
| *evidence*                         |
|  +------------------------------+  |
|  | Click to join the discussion |  |
|  +------------------------------+  |
+------------------------------------+

After the user clicks "Join the discussion", which requires a login:

+------------------------------------+
| Title               by Kate Smith  |
|                                    |
| Words words words.                 |
| *evidence*                         |
| Words words words.                 |
| *evidence*                         |
|   ------------------------------   |
| Todd: Interesting Take, Kate!      |
|   Kate: Thanks!                    |
| Ned: I think it's ridiculous that  |
|   you are citing the 4th amendment |
|   to say blah.  Article 3 is much  |
|   more appropriate.                |
| Troll: *swears to get attention*   |
| Troll: This is unsatisfying, b/c   |
|   most people who read the article |
|   won't click "Join discussion"    |
+------------------------------------+

Kate can easily ban the Troll. If Kate thinks Ned is helpful, she can engage him. If she doesn't like Ned, she can ban him. If Kate bans Ned, he'll get a message that says:

Our goal is to help people express their views and support them with facts. The point of the discussion is to help Kate make her take better. You tried to help, but she wasn't ready to hear it.

Don't worry! No harm, no foul! Just like Kate doesn't need your approval to make a point, neither do you need hers. Give your take here.

@WebsByTodd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Feb 5, 2017

What if users knew that if they clicked "Join Discussion" that their name would appear in the discussion (a sidebar maybe) as being a member of the discussion? This would quickly teach users to only click "Join Discussion" if they intend to contribute, rather than to peruse comments where anyone can say something that is not based on a Fact from the Foundation.

@nedtwigg nedtwigg added the strategy label Feb 5, 2017

@nedtwigg nedtwigg referenced this issue Feb 5, 2017

Closed

Discussion MVP #15

@WebsByTodd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Mar 16, 2019

Not actionable, closing.

@WebsByTodd WebsByTodd closed this Mar 16, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.