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
Another Francis Urquhart fan, I see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ylu3x72WHTs
So say we simplify. Totally Claire-centric world. Just two Like Buttons, not many.
Button A: “Liked for Flattering Claire.” Not really a rigorous argument, but I do–very predictably–like it.
Button B: “Liked for politely explaining to Claire that she’s wrong about the facts and winning her around on the arguments.”
Just playing with ideas. (No proper American tells another proper American you “can’t automate everything” in the expectation that his fellow American would see those words as anything but a challenge. So Ricochet’s going to be the Henry Ford of Cordial Conservative Conversation. Just have to iron out the bugs.)
Don’t mind the “work” part, obviously.
No, I don’t think that’s true. Some people will take offence at anything because they’re nuts. Some things are authentically offensive. So the tone isn’t subjective, it’s either offensive, for real, or it isn’t. If it’s offensive, for real, it’s because it’s uncivilized or immoral; and people who take offense at anything are–objectively–nuts.
Obviously, lots of unclear area in the zone of “how something was intended to sound” and “how it sounded to the person who heard it,” but that’s more like a translation problem than an “it’s all subjective” issue.
We want the principle of freedom of expression defended in law, but we don’t freedom of expression here. Here, we wish strictly to ban people from saying uncivilized and immoral things. The point of freedom of speech is to have freedom, not to say uncivilized and immoral things all the time.
We want freedom. On Ricochet, we go further and say, “We want freedom, but in no way do we find that a good argument for moral relativism, so go say uncivilized and immoral things somewhere else. Preferably nowhere, although we do not think you should arrested for saying them. ”
I figure we should use roughly the strategies on Ricochet to discourage immoral and uncivilized speech that we use in the real world to discourage immoral and uncivilized behavior.
Civilized people have many tools for that. Including clear and detailed descriptions of crime, with many categories, punishments for those who commit them, and massive rewards and incentives for those who don’t.
Automated systems can be part of this system of useful tools, so I’m not persuaded that we can’t use some of them here. I mean, I’ve managed to get a ticket for a traffic violation even though there wasn’t a cop in sight. Never did that dumb thing again, either. What I did was actually, not subjectively, immoral. Not grossly, given that the only bad consequence was that I got a ticket, but I violated a law that was there for a very good reason.
The law, and quite a number of automated systems punished me for an immoral behavior and gave me an incentive never to do it again. Of course, other parts of the system need to work, too: As you can see, I’m too ashamed to admit what I did. I’m old enough now to really understand why you don’t break a law like that.
Don’t see why we can’t apply some of the same principles here.
As for things like red light cameras–and no, I wasn’t that stupid and immoral, but it was close–I obviously think the laws on those should be made at the most local level possible, and based on solid data. I want social norms and laws to keep stupid and immoral kids from doing stupid and immoral things because they don’t see a cop in sight and aren’t yet good enough drivers to decide whether they really don’t see anything at all in sight. In some places, an automated system seems to work well to that end. (In other places, it does not.)
(Even the “state law” level seems too high to make that kind of decision to me, but I guess it’s impractical to go much lower.)
I’m not a moral relativist, so no, I don’t think it’s subjective. I truly think some things are objectively stupid and immoral. I think we may be able to create automated systems here that help us more usefully to improve what is in fact a real ratio. I think words like thoughtful,” “respectful,” “factual,” insulting,” “emotive,” and “inspiring,”describe real things. Obviously, you can’t toss out the human judgment part entirely, but we may be able to figure out how to automatically toss out what is obviously not “respectful” or “factual” faster and better.
I hate talking to BofA’s bots. But bet you it was indeed the bots, not the humans, who figured out well before I did that yes, some other bot was fraudulently using my credit card. Which is immoral. Objectively. I’m glad the bot caught them. Don’t think it was a human at BofA who did that. I think it was an algorithm.
Hate talking to the automated systems, but I don’t mind them when they’re useful.
As an amateur writer, I was unaware of this. I’m glad you said it because lately I’ve been dealing with difficult tone from others, but I didn’t think to objectively evaluate it. What a revelation! Thanks.
-E
Ha-ha only serious. This is why we hate government busybodies.
#YGDR
Neither consistency nor rigor are good in and of themselves except in a classroom. Might as well ass LIKE buttons for diversity, fairness, and social justice.
Claire,
Any time you are “refereeing” people there is subjectivity. This has nothing to do with moral relativity. Even the best “refs” make bad calls. Unlike sports Ricochet doesn’t let people know what the problem was since the comment is deleted and replaced with [CoC Violation]. Compounded to this each editor has a different “strike zone”. You have asked for suggestions and now you have one. It is just as important to have negative codes as positive ones, don’t you think? How about making these?
Please help me to understand how “translations” are not subjective. Words are colored by our experiences. I was just in correspondence with a friend who thought “dumb” was offensive but “stupid” was okay. I find “stupid” offensive.
Also this might be a guy thing but men tease each other with mock offensiveness. It is a form of communication. It is a “dis” that is not a “dis”. As Larry Koler pointed out long ago, this is a form of bonding that strengthens the site. People who don’t get the jokes could find these back and forth offensive.
Perhaps we will be blessed with a list of truly offensive things.
Hard cases make bad law.
TEWIT (That’s Exactly What I Thought)
BYH: Bless your heart…
Case in point. Tons of subtle things I don’t remotely understand go into my judgment that there could be a touch of sarcasm there. “What a revelation!” is sometimes not a compliment. If I were to read that and conclude that there might be a touch of mockery or light sarcasm there, and that therefore I should be offended–would I be correct?
No, I’d be nuts.
I’m human enough to see that it could have a negative meaning–bot can’t do that–and if I want to read more into it than that, it’s my problem. If it’s there, and if I’ve been gently chided, perhaps it was for a good reason. If unsure, I can ask.
No bot I can imagine would throw out that comment. Nor should it.
Evaluated objectively:
a) That comment stays.
b) Anyone who reads more into it and gets offended goes.
A bot could do it. Only a human could get bent out of shape because a compliment might have a secondary meaning. The goal is not to “be human” here. We know what happens when people just let it all hang out. We are civilized.
That means if it has the secondary meaning of “Claire, that is not a revelation,” Claire does not get “offended.” Because if that secondary meaning is there, odds are Claire totally deserved it. Not that she should be “offended.”
A bot could do this, folks.
(CandE, did you just gently chide me? I know for sure I was thinking, “No, this is not a revelation. This is just dumb. If this were easy to do, someone would have done it.” But that’s my mood–it is not, in fact, what you said. If some part of something I said was useful, tell me more. That way we can figure out how to make it more useful.)
100 comments in, and I still have no idea whether this thread is serious or parody.
You know, I’ve been storing up this post in my mind for so long. Waiting for a “slow news day,” which is never going to happen. But it’s coming. Some interesting stuff for the Texans of Ricochet is coming up.
We’re honestly–and in total seriousness–thinking about ways to elevate the tone. My scheme clearly isn’t–ahem–perfect, yet. So I’m laughing at myself a bit. But I figure there are always good ideas among our members. Mine not be really great so far, but maybe if we all run with the idea a bit we’ll come up with a better one.
Worst that can happen is everyone will laugh because I had a dumb idea. Best-case scenario, we figure out how to mass-produce cordial conservative conversation. We then go down in history as at least the Henry Ford of cordial conservative conversation, right?
Or even better, if these ideas are basically correct.
Worst that can happen, everyone laughs at me. Won’t be the first time or the last.
Claire, this was a very smart post. I took the suggestions seriously at first (and they aren’t SO out there that they couldn’t be!) and then when Trink praised your brilliant satire, it was a head-smacking moment for me, and I regretted looking stupid by taking it seriously, though I did get a lot of (soft-headed?) likes, so I was in good company. Now, after a lot of banter from the less-serious and comments by other serious souls taking it seriously, Larry makes a good point–he’s still not sure if the suggestions were serious!
My current take is that Claire approached a delicate subject–civility here on Rico–in a semi-serious, semi-comical way, which cleverly raises the issue and gets us all thinking about being more civil and discussing how to make that happen and the ins and outs of determining what actually is civil and what isn’t, and whether or not we really want free speech here on Rico (we don’t, but in a good way) and that alone has a salutary effect on the civil tone here. A few good ideas may have surfaced as well and we’ve had a lot of fun making up stupid acronyms in the process! CMI (Color Me Impressed.)
Claire, you’re looking pretty hot in the pictures accompanying your Posts. How about a date? I could jump on a plane and be in Paris before you could say LR, OCC, ETT, INI, CIS. Hey, I know this great Algerian Restaurant. The cuscous is fabulous. And it ‘s in one of those authentic North African neighborhood you fancy. My French is rusty and I speak no Arabic, so you do the ordering. We could discuss the need for moral rectitude in the written communications. I have some unconventional thoughts on the subject that might be of interest. After dinner, more quality time together.
Now, no excuses like “I’m happily married”, or “I’m going steady with a really great guy.” I’m happily married as well, and have a really great girlfriend. It’s just that I need a break from the old routine. You and romantic Paris would be the perfect escape. Maybe you need some time away from the demands of perfectly ethical posting. Say the word and I’m airborne.
* The aforegoing Comment has been rigorously scrutinized for compliance with Ricochet code of conduct, and is found to be content free of matter appealing to the prurient interests of it’s subscribers.
Ought implies can. There may be those among us who have not yet been taught to make them, and thus cannot–yet. It would be unsurprising to discover that many American adults have not had exposure to strict rules of logic. It does not mean they’re incapable of adhering to it–at all–but might mean someone like you could write a useful and educational post, in the assumption that those of us who were taught the mystery should pass it on.
I could lecture people about the “rules of logic” that very few have been taught, or perhaps you could can teach them these mysterious tools that are not in fact all that hard. Propositional logic (like French) has been made to sound like a big ole’ elite mystery, but it isn’t. It’s a lingo that comes in handy. Easier if you learn it in childhood, but you can learn it as an adult. It’s not some weird and elite language. It’s a useful one.
Go for it. Start with the basics: You’re on the modus ponens beat. Take it from there to Tarski, which is where I thought it fully deserved its reputation for being really elite and difficult. So much so that I dropped the class.
Well, since we don’t have to know whether we’re being serious or not, here’s my suggestion. After Claire develops her “bot,” set it loose on the comments on some other site, like Huff Po, The Federalist, or WaPo. If it fails to delete every single comment on those sites, it doesn’t work.
Put differently, I am very happy with the tone and level of conversation here. Not compared to perfection but compared to the alternatives. Isn’t it the favorite delusion of the left to compare reality to some imaginary perfection, rather than to other forms of reality?
By the way, if we have “like” categories, I want one for Brilliant Sarcasm (giving an upbeat twist to the term “BS”), and every post by Lileks should have that one hard-wired in for every view it gets. As Claire said, some things are just not subjective.
Consistency, rigor, fairness, and justice are aspects of the good. Diversity is irrelevant, it isn’t a moral quality. The aspects of the good may not, in and of themselves, be equal to the good. This does not entail that they are not good. I sure wouldn’t assume any aspect of the good may be safely left in the classroom. Nor does it entail they are equal to things that are bad. A button for “diversity” is bad, because it confuses moral categories. The word has become a ludicrous cliche at this point, usually indicating that someone is on the verge of saying I should cherish diversity as he proves his conformity by saying those very words. “Social justice” is a phrase for the highly confused. Often what’s underneath these cliches is sloppy thinking–statistically more common than psychopathy, otherwise known as true evil. Sadly the latter really exists and exists in spades.
A button for “fairness” would encourage the good.
“Might as well” is logically equivalent “it’s all good.”
It is not.
Claire Berlinski
Is it possible to make “my bad” a CoC violation?
It’s no challenge at all to program a bot to recognize that and delete it, but you’re quite right, it would be more tasteful to spell it out. Phew.
#16–TMS: that’s my story (and I’m sticking to it! nyah!:)!
#16—-TMS: that’s my story (and I’m sticking to it—nyah :)!)
The CoC is fantastic in terms of squelching offensive language. People clearly understand what’s okay and what isn’t.
There have been a few times when the conversation got crazy. The Israel threads last summer were highly emotional. I’m pretty calm, but I lost a lot of sleep over those discussions.
I always picture a meter on the Ricochet Editor’s desk. When the comment count is climbing too fast, as long as it’s not in the PIT, time to check out what’s going on.
If I were the editor, I’d take a light hand when it came to pulling offensive comments because it is a serious step to take.
My yardstick would be comments that were personal. Anything that started with a “You” would get my attention.
Removing a comment is such a serious step to take that I’d also send the writer a private message in hopes to explain and soften the blow.
Anger is a great thing. It gets things done. Yelling is good for the soul. I’m tired of the don’t-raise-your-voice liberals. The monotone NPR people.
So I like to see anger. It bothers me only when it is directed at me or someone else in a “I hate you and everything you represent” way.
The interesting thing to me is that we people are drawn to good arguments. We love them. Take the heat out of the exchanges here and it’s no fun! I might as well go back to the library by myself.
If people are afraid of the comment police, some of our more interesting and bombastic writers will leave. I would hate to see that happen. I really enjoy some of the fist-raised-against-the-gods writers here.
I’m confused by the paragraph. Logically, it looks to me like this:
And here’s where I get confused:
I mean, sure, toss the Spinoza (falls under the category of “I know it’s important but do I really have to read this.”) But is there really anyone among us who doesn’t feel a bit dependent on words written by Newton? Deep down? The new-fangled physics is all very interesting and so forth, but really?
I don’t mind if the pilot’s never given a moment’s thought in his life to Spinoza, but if he tells me “no need for Newton–never read a word,” I’m just not taking that flight. So I guess I’d put it under the category of, “What do you mean ‘we,’ kemo sabe?”
It is hard for person A to listen to person B arguing against person B’s deeply held and cherished beliefs. I am actually surprised sometimes at the restraint I see on Ricochet on some subjects.
One of the most painful stories I have ever read is this one in the Atlantic Monthly by Alston Chase on how Harvard made the unibomber–and I am not overstating that.
After reading it, I have always felt that Harvard should be on trial for murder, not the unibomber. What they did to this young kid was horrific, and they knew what they were doing to him while they were doing it. They were experimenting with this very thing, how to find a person’s emotional breaking point when facing arguments against the person’s strong beliefs. Yelling “There is no God!” to a kid raised to believe in God. The researchers locked him in a room by himself, ganged up on him, and tore apart his beliefs every day. The kid finally broke. I would have too.
I respect Harvard’s achievements, but this emotional torture program that they embarked upon as described in this article was criminal.
My point is that the arguments here on Ricochet stay in the cool zone–and to my surprise sometimes. We get into subjects here that are deeply important to the members.
Of course, Mike! Come on over. I think it’s hugely important for ladies to practice the critical civilizational skill of having scintillating conversations with married men. Then puzzling them greatly at the end of the evening when somehow it doesn’t end up quite where they planned. But leaving them thinking, “That conversation really was better than what I had planned. And at least she had the decency to choose the most inexpensive restaurant she knows and order the cheapest item on the menu.”