Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Spirit of Ricochet: Elevating the Tone
In response to our unceasing efforts to persuade our own members to join Ricochet, one of our members sent us a message. The key sentence was unsettling:
The ratio of thoughtful, respectful, and factual comments to insulting and emotive comments is not inspiring.
Our first response was defensive. We promptly crunched the numbers, having rigorously defined the terms “thoughtful,” “respectful,” “factual,” insulting,” “emotive,” and “inspiring,” and found the ratio is entirely inspiring.
But after we smoothed our ruffled feathers and got over our how very dare yous, we admitted it. Inspiring is not good enough. The ratio must be glorious. We must settle for nothing less than the Golden Ratio: “All comments must always be thoughtful, factual and respectful. None may be emotive or insulting.” (Emotion is fine. It’s politics, after all. But comments that call to mind the hystrionics in Britain in the wake of the death of Princess Diana are not.)
One of my “bosses” suggested the problem might defy automation. He insinuated that it might require more “work” on my part. “Get out there and be a beat cop, Claire. Go smack ’em down (politely) if you see anyone disgracing our honor with so much of a hint of an insulting or emotive comment.”
To which of course I said, “Don’t be absurd. We are American. Nothing defies our automation. We build better mousetraps. We build them bigger, better, faster and open longer. “Defies automation?” That’s what they used to say about flying.”
A lively, civil, polite, debate about Ricochet politics ensued. We have the seeds of good ideas, I suspect. But we must think more about them lest on careful inspection they prove to be stupid.
For now I wonder if you would indulge me in an experiment.
The “like” button is a blunt tool. Members have no way to show each other that they like a comment for a good reason. Merely “liking” something is for the soft-minded who do not belong here. On Ricochet we do not “like” things because we feel good about them. We like them because we have good reasons to prefer them.
“First thing we do before anything new and fancy is kill the bugs. Down to the very last roach,” said the Boss. Hard to disagree. But what if we try this as a temporary workaround. Suppose these were the new “like” buttons:
Logical Rigor (LR): “I liked your comment because your argument is sound: The argument is valid, and all of the premises are true.” (If you require a refresher on these terms, this will do.)
Ourstanding Civility (OC): “Whereas an uncivilized man might have responded to the previous comment with a disgraceful locution, you chose to respond with wit, tact, and civility. How admirable.”
Elevating the Tone of the Thread (ETT): Very occasionally a spectre of incivility haunts a thread on Ricochet. Even if no one has violated the CoC, the tone is somehow not in the right spirit. When this happens, our members tend politely to encourage each other to sort themselves out. Those who do should be lauded (or Liked) for encouraging civilized norms.
Introducing a Good Idea (IGI): “I had not thought of it that way. That stopped me in my tracks. You may be right, you may be wrong, but that’s the kind of new perspective on this problem that makes me think we might get somewhere with it.”
Consistent Intellectual Standards (CIS): Those willing reconsider their position if presented with conflicting data or a better argument are neither weak nor wobbly: They are intellectually rigorous. On Ricochet, this is a quality we treasure.
What do you say: Shall we try them for a week? Use the old like button as usual, but when you see the above qualities, reply to the post in question with the abbreviations: LR, OC, ETT, INI, CIS. No need to say more.
Then you can tell us next week if your experience of Ricochet was more agreeable as a result. It is a bit complicated, but why not try? The worst that could happen is we don’t like it.
Published in General
Unfortunately, we don’t all have the intellectual inclinations of James of E or anonymous but some of us have earned material success in the working world and have traveled and read extensively. Many of our seemingly “anecdotal” contributions are useful albeit our lack of dependence upon the grand words written by Burke, Spinoza, Locke, Aristotle, or Newton.
Where’s this category on your list?
Pencilvania
“If you really want to elevate the tone, you need to get more women commenting. Specifically, sopranos.”
I don’t appreciate the tenor of this remark.
Some of us descant help joking around.
Friends help each other out here. Why, I’d always heard the perceptrons couldn’t perform nontrivial logic functions because of an inability to perform the common X-OR, no matter how many NAND gates you toss into it. What a maroon I was! Arahant is around to helpfully point out that back propagation closes that open circle.
See what I mean? It’s like having someone tell you you’re too tipsy to drive home.
Every secretive power group has its hard core. With Scientology it’s the Sea Org; with the Vatican, it’s Opus Dei; for the Rosicrucians, it’s the, uh, order of the Rosy Cross; for the USSR it was the Comintern. I’m not claiming that status for the PIT and Chix PIT threads, but if someone else bestowed it on them, it would only be right and just.
To me, the PIT is not a crater dug in the ground; it’s an elegant penthouse nightclub, like the Rainbow Room high above the RCA building in Manhattan. After a tough wrestling match, hero and heel alike can ride the elevator to the penthouse and have a few cyber drinks together, momentarily forgetting the previous day’s quarrel.
I came to the site for the promise of more civil discussion, and I try to live up to that ideal.
I’m also a huge fan of knowledge sharing, so any time I see an opportunity to drop a hyperlink, I do.
I’ve flagged a few people and sent PMs or publicly responded to a few and they’ve been sensible in their response. Many others I’ve sent PMs to thank people for their civility. It’s not always easy to be civil.
re: Claire’s ideas about the “like” button being too generic
I’ve also raised a question in that direction.
re: lots of different like buttons
This has been tried before with some mixed success by Slashdot (+1 Insightful, +1 Funny, -1 Troll, etc.), but it and other technology applications are probably way too complicated for Ricochet. I would way rather prioritize development on basic site functionality like getting alerts to be better (which is being worked on).
And we have our own secret express elevator, too.
But we are funny people, I tell you!
possibly not COC compliant:
Office Space (1999)
As a Dennis Prager fan, I subscribe to his thinking on this topic:
To extrapolate a bit from that, the school of hard knocks teaches lessons too, as does autodidactic study.
I just came across a new “person I should know” in a recent Dennis Prager hour about the recent Benjamin Netanyahu speech before US Congress.
Eric Hoffer was a longeshoreman turned philosopher.
Prager mentioned him in context of a particular speech about Israel since Eric Hoffer also had some thoughts on Israel.
related:
Indeed. I pay my $5 a month for the privilege of the soft-minded “liking” of posts. If I have to use a cheat sheet to indicate why I like a comment each and every time, someone had better pay me more than $5 a month to do so.
Agree captain, but I had a sound formal education as well. My father spent tens of thousands of dollars so I could study English and French Lit because he believed that a good lib arts background would provide a useful basis for life.
I was on my own afterwards.
“And that has made all the difference.”
If I’m going to use an acronym to express My opinions I’ll use the one that’s tried and true, and universal already: FU.
It’s a marketing opportunity, don’t give this away for free!
I’m sure there are people who would pay good money for the opportunity to label posts in this manner – call it the McCarthy Level Membership and charge top dollar.
OR – give all members the opportunity to post a ‘grade’ or ‘classification’ at twenty cents a go.
(Of course you might need to expand the classifications to include negative, though still terribly polite, takes. In fact I think people would really be willing to pay [more! fifty cents!!] for each opportunity to classify posts negatively.)
I agree. I would note that on March 2, 2015 “The Daily Shot,” California Governor Jerry Brown was repeatedly referred to as “Q-Ball” or “Governor Q-Ball.” As a follicly-challenged person, that really stuck in my craw. I suggest that we overly avoid making disparaging comments about the physical appearance of other, including in “The Daily Shot.”
I think it falls on the nature of some peoples employment. I’ve often attempted to engage, but I’m away from a computer 10 -12 of my 18 waking hours. I’ll comment at 3 and the conversation will be over at 8, and I’ll be home at 9.
In fact I could peruse the convo’s I’ve contributed to and I’m sure mine find themselves at the end of the thread.
Jimmy Carter
“If I’m going to use an acronym to express My opinions I’ll use the one that’s tried and true, and universal already: FU”
Y not!
Even Plato recognized the need for Energy and Passion in his 3 humors. Nothing happens without our fiery temperaments. When he wasn’t advocating for the mass slaughter of everybody who disagreed with him which was borne from his deep seated daddy issues, he occasionally said some smart stuff.
“Less Diana and more Churchill.” Hey. Heyyyyyyyyyy! Here’s an idea! Two buttons only – 1. The Churchill button, for erudition, insight, hard mindedness. 2. The Franklin button for stewardship, wit, temperance, good fellowship, and raising the tone. The number’s posted in your profile.
LOL you mean UF, right? (University of Florida).
Uh oh . . . you gonna have Agent B on yo behind like butter on a biscuit . . .
Get outta town while ya can!
All I’m sayun’ . . .
I actually found the statement rather base… ;-)
Dear Claire
This sounds so good with a British accent. Unfortunately I need multiple single malts to acquire the accent, not that I mind that effort to acquire the accent. The question remains is this CofC compliant. Should I make the investment in single malts or just forget the whole thing.
Respectfully yours
Sober in Arizona, but dying of thirst.
https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
The only problem with this is that it would create an incentive for Ricochet to encourage negative reactions, and therefore comments that would generate lots of those fifty-cent clicks. Pretty soon, the editors would be the rudest of all. The whole place would be like the PIT started out.
Claire,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I think it’s high time to raise the level of discourse on Ricochet to the level of Philosophy.
https://youtu.be/B6nI1v7mwwA
THE GREEKS GO WILD!!!
Regards,
Jim
I can’t remember what IGI stands for, but it makes me think of Iggy:
or this guy:
and now for a serious response:
The acronyms made me sweat, I couldn’t remember them, even though I liked them.
However, I think that considering the specific ways you can like a comment creates the foundation for an actual comment.
Even though I had to go back to the post and look it up, may I say Claire, ETT: that your presence Elevates The T0ne of all posts and threads you visit.
Claire,
Ricochet should adhere to strict rules of logic. No shoddy arguments! Watch your every premise and conclusion.
Regards,
Jim
Zafar,
What if you only have 10 Cents? (I noticed you started the price range above my level. I am beginning to think that you hate me.)
This post made me laugh. It was well intentioned but not realistic. I don’t think this will fly. My take is that Members need some good posts on how to argue and how not to argue. Clear examples of what the rules are. Members make mistakes because they don’t understand the rules.
I am with Severely and EThompson that vigorous arguments need to be encourage. I wonder if the editors understand the difference between a tough back and forth and personal attacks. Do they want lukewarm milquetoast discussions? They shut discussions rather than bring the temperature down by clearly warning and showing the infractions.
Claire,
How about you editors giving codes on why a person got a CoC? Did we break the CoC or was another member offended? In the OP, you talked about tone. Isn’t tone subjective and has more to do with the reader than the writer? (If you write a response please don’t take that tone with me. ;-))
I love the idea of more buttons to express a specific type of approval. Sadly, it’s abundantly clear that they would also create more problems than they would solve. Why haven’t liberal websites done it yet?
-E