I personally like that BB’s core commenting group is small enough that I recognize and look forward to the comments by certain users. for the most part is is a good crowd…
3 Likes
And I respectfully point out that one way to not build a community of regular commenters is to open the floodgates of article commenting to anyone with a Disqus cookie in their browser and a pulse.
There is a reason we advocate for a community clubhouse next door, versus mindlessly slapping a bunch of comments at the bottom of every web page.
5 Likes
Amen and I am very happy with the work you are doing @codinghorror. It’s great to see discussion software come back to life and I love the Boing Boing community.
4 Likes
Slashdot’s results are decent; though arguably not brilliant. What is particularly impressive, though, is that those results are achieved without the use of a pre-trusted group of human moderators. Mod points get handed out, through some mixture of feedback for being upmodded and chance (the details have varied a bit over time); but expire if unused, so there’s a fair amount of rotation and no way of stocking up so that you have mod points when your favorite axe-grinding subject comes up.
Compared to smaller, more socially cohesive, moderated-by-trusted-and-trustworthy-humans, forums, Slashdot is a bit of a cesspool unless browsed at ~ +3 or so. Compared to any other forum where there are virtually no moderators, it’s nearly impossible to get banned, and almost no comments have ever been stricken from the record in the history of the system, it’s a damn miracle.
1 Like
I’ve definitely had discussions where, having considered someone’s points, I have told them they are right. It’s bizarre how people react to that - sometimes they try to keep arguing. I think there are very few of us who live in the have-a-discussion-to-try-to-learn-things world.
1 Like
I understand the intention, I’m just not sure it succeeded or can ever succeed using a voting system. Purely anecdotally, I have found upvotes/downvotes to correlate with the general ideology of a forum, rather than with any standard for “good” posting. The Men’s Rights subreddit would be an extreme example of this. More to the point, I quit reading Slashdot right around the time the comments section was flooded by people supporting Ron Paul for president. I can assure you there were some pretty bizarre posts getting 5 for insightful/informative.
Yes. If down-voting ends up hiding your post then it is mob censorship and not constructive debate.
I’m not so sure. “Mob censorship” sure makes it sound bad, but what about if that message board is just a place where people don’t want to listen to you? Are boards even supposed to be places of constructive debate?
If our opinion of humans is that they will simply censor anything they disagree with and they need systems on internet message boards that reduce their capacity to censor, then what is the hope for constructive debate in these places anyway?
1 Like
Is this a thing?
Please define.
No and there is none? They’re still pretty good places to refine your ideas and to convey them in writing. Promoting literacy is a noble goal in itself.
Or your post was bad and you should have been ashamed to make it.
1 Like
Hmm… I had meant to link to:
In response to @PrestonSturges
Mob censorship is bad. Which is why I chose to express myself somewhere else. There’s forum netiquette that allows one to express themselves if on-topic. Even if a majority disagree there’s always room for discussion or others to abstain from commenting - not censorship.
That’s a giant leap of logic and a personal opinion. Should I downvote it because it isn’t true? Or, should it be discussed? Obviously you and others think it should be since it could be a valid point. If I and others who know that statement is untrue downvoted you into oblivion then you’d feel your contribution to the discussion was censored unfairly.
I’d say it’s when a discussion board or forum allows users to arbitrarily subvert or censor another users post. This could be by downvoting until a post is no longer visible or other means.
I realise moderated discussion is not truly free speech. However, it is preferable to being penalized by those who cannot be responsible enough to have a constructive, informed debate yet seek the power to silence detractors.
No problem!
Mob Censorship: Any slashdot discussion involving nuclear power, global warming, or libertarianism.
Note the topics change over time, though. That’s just this week’s list.
1 Like
I have a strong desire to argue this point but I think I might be too far into the minor pedantic point based in misanthropy. Every way I think the situation through downvote buttons seem like a bad idea (which I thought anyway) and hiding content that gets very downvoted enables cliques. So point to you.
I see, I wouldn’t call that censorship but I have no interest in debating semantics either, its enough that I get where you’re coming from.
I will say that you may be describing trolls or at the very least, trollish behavior, and that if you take them at face value, well then… You lose.
In a sense, you are the poster boy for this article! 
:bro hug: 
I knew there was something wrong with this thread, it’s missing an obligatory XKCD.
4 Likes
or to look at it another way-- the forces of negativity need to be quarantined from the general study-- they are separate beasts.
in management, there are maxims of varying numbers, but generally: “it only takes one OH SHIT to undo five ATTABOYS.”
and there have been workplace studies to show that negativity is a force multiplier to the tune of FIVE on average, so that you need to work 5 times harder, have 5 times more positive people AT LEAST to combat toxic individuals… which is why comparing the outcome of normal non-toxic posts getting positive feedback to the whirlpool of geometric toxicity of negativity fundamentally flaws the perceptions of those looking at the results.
ask any clicker-training expert-- positive reinforcement WORKS. the fact that it doesn’t “work” compared to downvoting is the wrong way to look at it. it should be obvious that we have already seen:
- positive feedback did yield a positive result
- negative feedback did yield a negative result-- just that some were surprised at HOW negative.
don’t let the trolls set the bar for behavior, and we’ll all be fine.
1 Like
