Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be

[nuclearnerd]

I'm new to CD so I don't want to speak with too much certainty, but I wonder if the occasional nastiness isn't a reflection of the (pretty old by internet standards) vBulletin template. Other online communities have been trying to grapple with similar problems (maintaining civil discussion, highlighting useful information) and they have come up with various forum features that help somewhat. These include:

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.

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

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.

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.

There are other techniques as well (heavy / pre-moderation, signup costs, contributor rankings / best post trophies...). Not all of them will be useful here, but some of them might. A facelift wouldn't hurt either - the CD interface is pretty intimidating for someone who isn't already inclined to post online. I don't have the skills to contribute the changes myself unfortunately, but I'm sure there are some talented web designers in FRC who might be up to the challenge.

[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.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

This is a great post, and might just be the best one I've read, ever. If you look at the "negative" conversations that have been going on, 90% of the posts are by the set of people people who have full/almost full rep bars, and are active, well-known users. If everybody makes a good effort to be constructive, we could really make CD a wonderful place. After reading this, I looked through my posts from this year, and realized that I'm guilty of doing most of the bad stuff. I've convinced myself that I'm not going to post anything that doesn't help someone or contribute to a conversation. If I think something isn't good, I'll try to stay more positive, and help find a possible solution. For all the complaining over little things I did this year, I accomplished absolutely nothing.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Really? He's been at a few events where I know you were, too. My advice: Find him. Good "kid"*

Yes, it does.

OK, seriously: Ryan, CD has always had some bickering; what we are seeing today is just more of it. In the past, the 'trustees'** of CD would either PM, or negative rep, or outright ban someone who was practicing "Obnoxious Amateurism"***, or just a troublemaker.

Whats' changed is that we are seeing reduced involvement of the trustees. I am not trying to criticize Brandon Martus, but many in the CD community would be tickled pink to help him maintain decorum.

CD is not like other fora on the Interweb: We have a younger crowd here, and "Gracious" is a key word in our vocabulary. We can change it, but we need moderators who will do it and admins who believe it is the right way to run a forum.

Good post Ryan, thank you.

Don


*Kid to me, since I'm such an old fart. It's all relative.
**Mostly the forum moderators, but fewer and fewer are active these days. Possibly because the atmosphere is different.
***The opposite of Gracious Professionalism.

.

Don, I agree wholeheartedly. It's not something that could be fixed in a day, but over time I think it could be brought back at least to the same level of politeness.

I know that one of the major complaints I've seen from long-time members is simply the drastic drop off in signal-to-noise. It used to be (a decade ago) that a large majority of the posts had worthwhile content. Now you get just as many "me too", meme, or fluff posts that don't have any useful or original content. I don't know any solution short of taking a far more strict standpoint on what type of posts are allowed in forums outside the social ones.

A lot of this is true. I have friends on teams heavily involved in FIRST who are role models to their community and fellow teams who say that CD is only negativity, mindless criticism, and a hive mind where opinions are discouraged due to the need to be "GP". And as an involved user who thinks CD has the potential to be a great resource, I wholeheartedly agree. I only come on here because I have hope that there will occasionally be the rare learning opportunity or person asking for help in a topic I can assist with. I haven't posted any CAD I've done for months on Chief because I get no constructive criticism from it, and neither do my friends who, like me, are now choosing to spread their designs and talk about FIRST through other social media websites rather than Chief Delphi.

Thank you, Ryan, for bringing this up in the fashion you did. It's been attempted before, but I have a feeling this may actually get something accomplished. Also, Happy Birthday!

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Hallry

I’ve never talked to Brandon Holley in person, but something that he said once has stuck with me lately. His custom user title reads “Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be”, which we should all strive to do.

You can't go back, only forward. (Entropy, heat death, etc...)

The internet has been developing as long as FIRST. The internet is a Tower of Babel, reflecting the ease and diversity of the opinions of the hoi polloi. Do you want freedom or not? Would you prefer a lockstep monoculture?

I don't find that the commentary here is any worse for wear than it was in the past. We have always had our "pilot light" wars.
I find that the posts responding to contrary ideas and correcting each other to be forthright.

Many of us are engineers or have those proclivities. We always see a construction and think, "That's nice, but it could be better.", or, "I concur.", or "Are you crazy?" So we respond.

Let's move forward whilst maintaining our graciousness.

[Christopher149]

On a less controversial side of things, I like that I haven't seen full-on spam threads on CD for a while. Please, let us not go back there...

IMO, compared to much of the Internet as a whole, CD can be a rather more civil place than most. I'm reminded a bit by a quote (that I think might be from Woodie Flowers, and I'm paraphrasing) is that one of the biggest problems in life are those things that we know, that just aren't so. Be willing to take criticism, know when you're wrong, and give criticism where it is due (without jumping into a pot of boiling anger).

As long as CD remains a civil discourse, a resource for sharing, thanking, and working through problems, things will be okay.

[Brandon Holley]

Thanks for the kind words Ryan.

I 'officially' joined ChiefDelphi back on kickoff in 2004 after a couple of years of stalking. Like Tom pointed out, CD helped me grow up, learn to make concise well-articulated arguments and was a source for endless information on all things FIRST (and more).

I had a chance to interact with guys like Andy Baker and Joe Johnson on a daily basis, and have them critique my designs, strategies and choices. Of course there were spirited debates and arguments, that will come with ANY group that is passionate about something.

What I think we're really missing these days is hearty technical discussion, with original ideas and complimentary content. Looking at designs posted up for critique in the past several years, much of the feedback is regurgitated from older/similar posts. Creative ideas are often first critiqued with something like, "Interesting, but you should just do 6WD kitbot instead...". While this is extremely useful advice in certain situations- I miss the CD that celebrated cool ideas with a nice discussion about them- not endless rants and questions as to why you would ever do such a thing.

I was very fortunate to have some amazing mentors both here on CD and in person along my path. I still have these mentors as I've gotten older and picked up new ones along the way. I would like to think the next generation of FIRSTers can be exposed to the same experience I had here on CD. It's not a simple problem to fix, as cultural issues are often deep-seeded and have massive inertia.

All we can do is lead by example and hope the rest follow suit. Something I have tried to do as a mentor, and I know many others have as well.

-Brando

[stuart2054]

As a mentor with only five years in FRC and on CD my opinion is of limited value. I offer this. I find CD a good resource and generally positive in nature. I can figure out negative threads usually by the title but I some times read them and post if I have input for or against.

I think discussion is generally positive on CD. Discussion in a civil manner should never be discouraged but I would agree that some posts are not civil. Welcome to our world and the realities of it.

There has always been negatives to freedom of speech but we should not run from the principal of it in this forum. We should strive to be CIVIL in our discussions and PERHAPS censor uncivil posts but who is the JUDGE of that. I like this forum and try to be constructive in my posts and I believe for the most part others do as well.

I think questioning this forum and what is posted is healthy and the question should be asked from time to time but a third party just deleting posts or the like does not seem to me the way to go unless FIRST is drawing the wrong sort of people more than I have witnessed.

[JaneYoung]

This is a thought based on a few years of participating in Chief Delphi and in FIRST.

When members refer to the mentoring leadership skills that Andy Baker and Joe Johnson shared and continue to share with us - they are addressing skills that are hidden in plain view. One example would be the value of listening. Another would be paying attention. Another would be, and I think this is very important, they don't forget about the membership of the Chief Delphi community. It is a wonderful community comprised of members of all ages, diverse cultures, interests, and experiences. Andy and Joe never forget that. Neither does Brandon.

When new members participate, they are learning. When new members of a FIRST team join and participate, they are really learning. We can all remember the struggle of learning about this amazing program, and.. whoa... there is a forum, created by a team, for people to gather and be a community. Wow, how cool that?!?! There are those who always keep the community, and the unique opportunities that it presents, at the forefront of their thoughts when posting. There are those who begin to slip into taking it all for granted and who stopped listening and keeping the community members in mind when they are posting.

And that's why threads like these are healthy.

It's been quite a year and it has been reflected here within this community. That said, many wonderful things have happened and opportunities have occurred. Don't lose sight of those when you bring your gifts and talents to boards here in CD. It's not that hard to do.
---
A final thought - Andrew, you have a really good friend. You are lucky that he/she cares enough to be that honest with you. Everyone should have a friend like that.

Jane

[VioletElizabeth]

I've always wished I could help remedy the issue of "not enough technical discussion" but the sad part is, I don't have enough technical knowledge to do this, almost all of the time. I come here to learn from you guys! I don't have enough data to draw any conclusions, but I can say from anecdotal evidence, out of a desire to improve the overall quality of posts, I am more hesitant to post on the technical threads, because I am aware of my lack of experience. After being a fairly passive user for a long time, and seeing threads like this time and time again, I have made an effort to post constructively when I can, but it is difficult when I often am not able to. However, all this may be irrelevant if inexperienced people are the minority here.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I've delayed posting in this thread, as I process my thoughts. Here is what I have come up with:

Discussion is important to the FIRST community, which is why ChiefDelphi is a great resource for mentors and students. It is a medium for discussion, allows for everyone to develop their communication skills, and encourages networking among individuals. These are the facts.

:: Puts on English teacher glasses ::
Imma take you back to your sophomore year English class when you analyzed Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
::Zach Morris timeout:: You never analyzed Julius Ceasar!? You didn't pay attention in English class because you didn't think it was important or interesting?! THIS is why we need more NEMs in FIRST.

There are three tools (appeals) to use when you have a discussion:
1. Logos
2. Pathos
3. Ethos

Such Greek. So philosophy. Much debating.

Logos: the appeal using Logic.
(Attention! Stereotype ahead!) This is the way that most engineers argue: logically. The facts are the facts! The data shows this, and so we should do this. You are wrong because you have nothing to back up your point of view. I am right because I can point to this, that and there. Logic is valuable when making an argument because it has information to back up its point. Logos is cited often on ChiefDelphi, and used more by veteran mentors because they have more data, experience and information at their fingertips. Personally, I feel that this is the most important form of appeal in discussions. What's the purpose of discussion if you can't back up your argument?

Pathos: the appeal to Emotion.
(Stereotype ChooChoo coming again! Don't let it derail your train of thought! I'm so punny...) This is the type of appeal that most engineers dismiss as being unimportant. "I'm right because I'm right, and here are the facts to show it. Why should I care what other people feel?" That's a great question! You should care what other people think because how they feel towards you effects how they view your point of view. If they feel insulted, attacked, dismissed, or judged, they are more likely to dismiss your points of view, regardless if you have shown them facts that they can not dispute. Similarly, if your audience feels respected, listened to, and like an active participant they are more willing to listen to your point of view, respect your input and be swayed to your side. You know who is great at this? Good Guy Frank. Why do we all like him? Because his tone suggests that he cares, his attitude reflects thoughtfulness, and he consistently points out how he is listening to what we have to say. He often appeals to Pathos.

Ethos: the appeal using Credibility.
This is the most fascinating appeal IMO. It is one that takes time to develop. Each person's credibility depends on a variety of things and is unique to that person. For example, Dave Lavery's credibility (quoted so nicely by Andrew in an early post) is huge: Just Google the guy and you come up with some impressive information. His professional credibility allows him a unique balance of sarcasm in his writing, because what he says automatically holds a lot of weight. It also means that his posts are scrutinized carefully by others. Similarly, Andy Baker's credibility is popular due to his long-term participation in FIRST, the creation of AndyMark Inc and his thoughtful personality that shines through in all that he does. ChiefDelphi is a fantastic way for people to make or break their own credibility. Rarely does credibility stand on its own though: in order to turn yourself into a credible debater, you need to appeal to other's sense of logos and pathos.

Which brings me to my final point (just kidding, I have like a million more things to say still...):

The best discussion/debate utilizes all three forms of appeals. ChiefDelphi provides a fantastic medium for this, especially with the greenie/reddie reputation system. If you find that you are really good at one appeal (I imagine most of you are great at Logos) then try to improve your use of another appeal.

Additionally, ChiefDelphi is part of a larger program: FIRST. FIRST is a program that embraces learning and growth. Which means that CD should be a place that allows for learning and growth as well. So we need to add two final aspects to our appeals: Humor and Humility.

Humor: FIRST is supposed to be fun! So embrace humor and try to find humor in your own writing as well as the communication in others. When we find humor, we become more creative and thoughtful individuals, which helps with all three forms of appeal.

Humility: FIRST embraces growth for all members. Embracing humility and constantly looking for how to improve yourself (including your written communication skills) is helpful to the community as a whole.

With the recent rise of various social media pages, like FRC Confessions, that diminish the Ethos and Logos side of discussions and concentrate soley on the Pathos, (yes, shots fired) it's important for everyone in our FIRST community to continue embracing and learning about our Core Values, especially how we apply them through written/digital communication.

[fox46]

As a thought experiment: "I love team 2013" is the exact same statement (albeit multiplied by -1) as "I hate team 2013". For one statement to be acceptable and the other not, doesn't really make sense now does it? However, the first is perfectly acceptable to post while the second is not. Each one should be met with the same response if you truly want the most out of our discussions here on CD- "Why do you love/hate team 2013?". The problem is that the first makes everyone feel happy and fuzzy inside and hence goes unquestioned. The second, elicits "That's not GP of you". In either case we fail to discover the merits or deficits of team 2013.

People do not always agree on things. When you appeal to a community for answers to technical questions or solicit an opinion, you have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with each other. Each has their own views of a situation and what the best solution is. If you solicit these responses from people, then be ready for them to defend their views and ways of thinking against each other in whatever method they choose.

For someone to say "I want to know what you all think, but I want everyone to give me the same answer and agree" is not conducive to a productive discussion so don't expect it when you make a post.

Some of the greatest advances in history are a direct result of conflict. Arguments and bickering are indeed part of the discussion- they are the result of individuals attempting to assert themselves in a forum where I am sure many feel as if they are not heard. It may need to be managed, if not to protect the delicate egos of everyone involved, then to simply filter out some of the tripe in many of the threads these days but I implore everyone to STOP HIDING BEHIND THE GUISE OF GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM WHEN SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. It cheapens the meaning of the term and does nothing to further the discussion. If someone doesn't agree with you and says your idea will not work, or when someone thinks something or someone is bad etc- don't just hurl the accusation that they are being ungracious. Understand that this person has been influenced by an experience(s) or event(s) that has caused them to arrive at their statement and it is not appropriate for you to dismiss their views simply because they don't make you feel happy inside.

In the end, if you want a forum where valid, discussion takes place- where opinions are collected (and in a discussion forum like this, 99% of what takes place are opinions whether the participants accept this or not) then you're going to have to take the good with the bad and accept the fact that not everyone is as happy as you, not everyone shares the same opinions and not everyone agrees that a swerve drive can overpower a skid steer drive etc.

If you don't like where a discussion is headed, then don't participate. On the internet, everyone considers themselves an expert and everyone has an opinion - this is the reality. If you squelch it because it does not make you feel good then you loose part of what makes an open forum so valuable.

IMHO: Take the bad with the good and get over yourselves. Parse the information you collect using your objective thinking skills and form your own opinions whether they are good or bad, agree with your premises or not. If we get rid of the negativity, we lose half the experience.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by fox46

As a thought experiment: "I love team 2013" is the exact same statement (albeit multiplied by -1) as "I hate team 2013".

Wat.

Negation is a big difference, and sentences in natural language aren't formal logical statements to begin with. I don't think you honestly believe that there is no substantive difference between how those two statements contribute to the atmosphere on the message board.

Telling a team that you hate them is not graciously professional, and I hope you have the decency to never do so. That is not how we maintain a healthy community.

[James1902]

The fact that this thread includes a post discussing the finer points of web-forum community interaction followed by a post using Greek philosophy to explain debate dynamics helpfully illustrates why I love this forum, and the community that it supports, so much.

I do think discussion and debate between differing viewpoints is healthy and necessary to facilitate learning, but it's important to remain civil and try to maintain a professional and inclusive decorum.

Also, this thread reminded me of the "Real Life ChiefDelphi" video Bacon made a while back. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_mdx8_6A4) had a little nostalgia trip at work.