[Andrew Schreiber]

I'm gonna just respond to these, there's some interesting ideas on them.



1) "Likes" (Slashdot, Reddit, Metafilter, StackExchange, Facebook, Twitter and almost everyone else) - this gives posters a chance to show support or agreement without having to fill the thread with "mee too"s. It also gives readers another way to filter or sort replies.

I've personally, never been much of a fan of "likes" I feel it leads to people writing things that are likable rather than useful discussion.


2) "Flags" (Metafilter, Slashdot) - gives posters a chance to notify moderators of particularly good or bad posts without having to fill thread with "pile-on" criticisms

Moderators already do way too much work for too little pay (ie, $0). Plus, define a bad post? I'm certain that my definition is vastly different than most folks. The rep system kinda serves as a way of passing a message to the actual user. (I use a lot of green and gray rep to give feedback).


3) "Real Name Policy" (Facebook, Google+) - a bit more controversial (I'm not actually in favour of this one, even though I follow it myself). It eliminates sock puppet accounts, and gives posters a bit of pause before posting to know that their comments will be attached to their names.

I've used my real name on here for many years. It doesn't really give me pause at this point. I know that you find this account if you search my name in Google. But, while I'm a bit of a jerk a lot of the time on here it's nothing compared to how some of my coworkers are. But I do like the idea of a person being a known person Accounts like LF are different imho. Having been on the prediction side of the coin, doing it from NOT your real name is a good thing. This community SAYS it's respectful but the horrific comments/lies I've gotten sent my way say quite the opposite.

However, that logic really only applies to adults.

4) Help forums (AskMetafilter, StackExchange) - specific places where anyone (not just CD regulars) are encouraged to find help, and regulars are encouraged (through various gamification tricks) to provide high-signal/noise responses.

I'd be ok seeing a StackOverflow style Q&A board, it solves some of the problems with forums. It does introduce some new ones.




How do we get to a less cyclically negative community? Well, I got a few wonderfully enlightening text messages today... at the time I didn't find them quite as wonderful but with a few hours to think on it I learned something. I'm sharing some of the thoughts since I have a hunch I'm not the only one who does it.

- Snippish responses to misunderstandings. I do this a lot, a lot of other folks do too. Maybe we should take a lesson from what we always yell at the GDC for and not rush our calls. I've been writing most of my posts 2/3 times before posting them... unfortunately I'm a REALLY fast typist. Coupled that with the fact that I get frustrated with what I perceive as stupidity and stay that way for a long time; I guess I need to physically write them out. I'd be willing to bet this would prevent a lot of misunderstandings.

- Negative tone. I, and many folks (esp this year) have a really negative tone. Or at least that's what folks tell me. I rarely see it as I focus mostly on content rather than tone. I'm open to suggestions on avoiding this one. It's a writing style/personality style. I've noticed, at least in my field, it tends to be quite common to be very negative when looking at things. Suggestions on being optimistic are very welcome.

- Frustration at arguments based solely on feeling. I'm a firm believe in facts. It's why I'm in STEM. My mind is wired to believe there is an OPTIMAL answer. Because of this I find myself being frustrated by folks who think that an opinion based on nothing more than "well I feel that..." is worth as much as a researched opinion. Big wakeup call to folks like me: We're wrong. I hate writing that, I hate admitting that. But as this friend pointed out (as much as I didn't want them to), feelings are just as valid about a lot of topics. That being said, folks who base opinions on feelings should recognize that if facts come to light disproving your feeling? Responding with "You're wrong because I feel this" without incorporating the new facts into your belief is just rude.


Those are the big three I pulled out of that conversation. I figured I'd share in case someone else similar finds any use out of them.