[Scape]

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/full-interviews ... se-online/

$1:

We've all had this experience on websites with lots of community content: witnessing - or being the victim of - bad behaviour. Whether it's trolling, ad hominem attacks, or good ol' comment spam, online conversation can sometimes be downright hostile. Lots of us wring our hands about how nasty people can be, but what if you could fix the problem...with software? What if it's not simply an ethical issue, but a technical one?

Jeff Atwood is something of a rock star in designing great places for the exchange of information online. He founded and built the Q&A site Stack Overflow, and the Stack Exchange group of sites: an elegant platform for effective communication. Now he's turning his skills to reinventing ye olde online forum, with Discourse. He thinks forum software can actually teach people how to be effective, civil communicators on web forums.

http://www.discourse.org/

Very interesting self moderating web discussion boards.

Thoughts?

[DrCaleb]

It might help with the comment spam, and perhaps ad hominems. I forsee though it missing trolls, and marking other non-troll comments as 'troll'.

Some things about language and conversation context are just too subtle for software. I don't think it would replace human moderation entirely.

[andyt]

I humans on this website can't agree what trolling is, how is software designed by humans going to do that. Pretty overworked term anyway. You think somebody's trolling, don't reply. Anything else and you're feeding the troll. And one persons trolling is another persons fair comment.

[Curtman]

Sounds like Slashdot. Users earn moderation credits they can spend moderating up or down individual posts. If your posts earn positive moderations, you get more credits.

The whole thing breaks when users learn what type of posts will earn credits, and the conversation becomes dull and stale, or when groups of users collaborate to silence another.

On slashdot, there became almost a formula to earn credits. If you post a comment saying Microsoft is bad, instant credits. Linux is good, instant credits.

They brought in meta-moderation to try to fix it, where users were asked to look at list of 20 moderations done by other users and click fair, neutral, or unfair. If your moderations get more "unfair", you get less credits. It works, except nobody actually does that anymore.

That would ruin a political discussion forum pretty quick I think.

[raydan]

Software to replace human moderation...

Scape and DrCaleb might still be here but Andyt, Curtman and me would have been kicked off CKA a long time ago.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

Software to replace human moderation...

Scape and DrCaleb might still be here but Andyt, Curtman and me would have been kicked off CKA a long time ago.

Yeah, we're the bad boys here alright.

[raydan]

You 2 are... I'm just collateral damage... that's the risk when using "moderation drones".

[Curtman]

OTI would be gone. Xort would have been gone before he had a chance to become a suckup, the user formerly known as Mr. Canada, etc.

User Moderation creates "Groupthink".

$1:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").

It makes it boring. I support our current authoritarian masters. if that makes me a bad boy so be it.

[Dragon-Dancer]

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

[BartSimpson]

Curtman Curtman:

:rock:

OTI would be gone. Xort would have been gone before he had a chance to become a suckup, the user formerly known as Mr. Canada, etc.

User Moderation creates "Groupthink".

$1:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates their own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of their opponents (the "outgroup").

It makes it boring. I support our current authoritarian masters. if that makes me a bad boy so be it.

Groupthink is already in effect in government employment, public universities, police departments, and etc. where dissenting opinions are routinely silenced.

If it's extended to the net and dissenting opinions are silenced by software then the remaining way for people to express themselves won't be quite so civil as a forum flame war.

[Zipperfish]

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

[Curtman]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Groupthink is already in effect in government employment, public universities, police departments, and etc. where dissenting opinions are routinely silenced.

If it's extended to the net and dissenting opinions are silenced by software then the remaining way for people to express themselves won't be quite so civil as a forum flame war.

Your point is that democracy in the forum will bring about a natural governing "liberal" majority...

I may have to rethink my opinion on the topic.