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
Claire,
You are so persistent. A lovely Sunday afternoon and one’s thought might turn to..well..something besides philosophy or logic. If you insist. I was never a great logician but I actually liked Tarski. I’ll think about your suggestion but probably GG would do a better job on this.
However, now that you have stopped me from being happily juvenile and forced me into seriousness, I realize I have something serious to say on your post. You have used the world ‘Spirit’. That is a very Hegelian word. Hegel sounds terribly good but it never jells into something really usable because he has short circuited philosophy with a concept that belongs strictly to theology ‘The Absolute’. Spirit sounds wonderful but is so vague as to be useless.
Now let’s try Kant. Kant would talk not of Ricochet’s Spirit but of its Aesthetic. With Kant there are two Aesthetic concepts, The Beautiful and The Sublime. The Beautiful is ‘The Good subjectively perceived through Form”. The Sublime is “The Good subjectively perceived through the Formless”. Freedom is formless. The representation of Freedom aesthetically would be Sublime. Ricochet at its wild free wheeling creative best is Sublime.
Ricochet’s one aspect that would not be described as Sublime would be its Civility. We aren’t nice because we are concerned about being nice. We are concerned about other members and editors who we like and respect and wish not to hurt. Humanity as an end in itself is the Matter of the Categorical Imperative. Humanity can be thought of as a kind of Form. Thus the representation of Humanity aesthetically would be Beautiful. Ricochet in its Civility, its respect for the Humanity of others, is Beautiful.
Now stay away from Hegel and its Sunday darn you. Not a cloud in the sky. There’s a beautiful path that runs along the inter-coastal around the Island. Brilliant Sun glinting off the water. Perfect for a nice long leisurely walk.
Now to imagine someone walking with me……
Regards,
Jim
Amen. I suggested a variation on this, along with a “Triple Dawg Like” button a few years ago on Rico 1.0. (I can no longer find the link to that conversation. Long gone, I suspect.) I have a very high regard for any comment that makes me snort coffee.
Zafar – I like your busness thinking so I would prefer it was the Bill Gates level.
I am pretty new to Ricochet, but I’m going to stick my nose in here anyhow. The first week or so of reading posts and comments did make me wonder what the level of civility was. As I became more familiar with members, and my mental catalog of their “personalities” began to develop, I could more easily recognize the humor and friendship in many comments and interactions. In fact, some of the members who intimidated me at first are now the ones whose wit I enjoy the most. (Others still scare the bejezus out of me.)
The idea of increasing the levels of surveillance on everyone because of the behavior of some seems excessive. It reminds me of the time when the principal where I taught didn’t want to confront the handful of teachers who came to school dressed like college girls headed to a fraternity party so he rewrote the dress code for the entire staff. If someone’s out of line, call him on it.
I would hate to see Ricochet’s personalities be dimmed, and the conversation become bland.
I actually was trying to be completely sincere. Only when I saw BDB’s comment did I realize what it sounded like. Chalk it up to my mental state; I was just coming off my 50th 12-hour shift in 53 days. And I wasn’t kidding about the amateur part either.
I also had recently received an e-mail from a family member that I considered to be rebuking over a triviality, which upset me. Not wanting to be an offender for a word, I tried to convince myself that it was all in my head. Your comment caused a light to switch on in my brain that told me that even though I didn’t have to be offended, I can also objectively evaluate the tone and intent of the e-mail.
Maybe not a revelation to most people, but to me at that moment it was.
-E
That’s great! I may not have solved all the world’s problems (or even figured out how to make Ricochet perfect), but hearing that something I wrote may have been useful to someone–and didn’t make the world worse–makes me feel like I had a reasonably good day. Which I try to judge by the standard, “Did I manage to do something useful for someone else?”–basically. (If I happen to have a good time doing that it’s a bonus–but it sure can’t be the goal. As I understand things, “useful to someone else” is the goal.)
So I’m really glad to hear that.
Depending on the number of computer programmers who subscribe to Ricochet, this short, seemingly innocuous, statement should set off a religious war that will rival the 30 Years War. (Be of good cheer, current membership, some historians estimate the population of Germany recovered in one short century.) And let me be the first to fire the second shot.
! or ~ or ^ or even .NOT. would be better choices as they exist on keyboards an actual human might type on. There are many reasons PL/1 enjoys the popularity it currently does: a specification called the Vienna Telephone Book, large abandoned boxes of punch cards (please note media) that are PL/1 compilers that never worked, the fewer and fewer of our aunts who have an IBM 360 in their garage (obscure Woody Allen reference). The choice of this symbol for the unary operator “not”, though minor, numbers among them.
Worse, IMHO, the introduction of unary propositional calculus operators is the slippery slope to binary propositional calculus operators and Goeterdaemmerung (and just note the awkwardness caused by the umlautlessness of my keyboard). Phrases like LIKE = IGI + !LC * ETT will enter the vocabulary of the younger members. And “modus ponens.” And “operator precedence.” And “reverse Polish notation.” Trouble in River City. Although some of us would welcome a thorough airing of De Morgan’s Theorem. Finally.
Really I’m not even sure like and loath (if that’s what we’re trying to do with this) are, or should be, 100% symmetrical. I suggest a separate, totally civilized, loath button. If for no other reason than I think Ineluctable Modality of the Visible (IMV) would be a cool, civilized reason to loath another persons arguments and helpful hints. It may mean short-sighted. Literally like the phrase’s author. (Not a swipe at Joyce, you understand. He was just really near-sighted.)
Cry Havoc!
Huh?
Look, all I want to know is: are you trashing my HP scientific calculator? Cause if so, it’s on.
-E
Dear Lord, I love it when Parker talks like that.
Götterdämmerung — That’s a 148 and a 132. What’s so difficult? And ¬ is 0172. It’s on the keyboard if one knows where to look.
We certainly would. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. With De Morgan, let’s start with the basics:
and
You’re on that beat. I want a post from you explaining this, in clear English. Explain why it’s important, and show how it works with common-sense examples.
For the perplexed:
Hugely useful. Could possibly be used to settle down a lot of incipient incivility on Ricochet, too.
Is this just the logicians way of telling us to mind our Ps and Qs?
-E
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
DeMorgan’s Theorem in Gates
Two forms of DeMorgan’s Theorem implemented with basic gates.
Not only Marc Antony but I’ve got Bill Gates too.
Personally, I think it has a great deal to do with an extra dimensional analysis. With four dimensions one can be not only upside down & backwards, but also inside out. Such a plus.
What was that about a loath button? A capital idea I think.
I am going to sleep now (thankfully).
Regards,
Jim
Not at all. It’s just a shortcut language for “common sense.” It can look intimidating if you’re not familiar with the notation because people love to pretend that they’re in possession of something elite and magic and too hard for everyone else, but basically, if I used normal English words and examples to say that, pretty much everyone would say, “Oh, yes, of course.”
The way using formal proposition logic would work to promote civility on Ricochet is that often, if you boil down what someone’s saying to formal terms, you’ll find that it’s not remotely offensive or emotive. It’s just “Oh, of course,” or, “In logical terms, that seems wrong, to me, are you sure that A ⇔ B?”
And if you ask that way, you can find out faster what someone really means. Only then do you need to worry about whether it’s correct, incorrect, or incoherent. Only after that do you need to worry about whether it’s offensive.
Just saves time. Nothing elite or compicated about it, just a useful tool that lets you save time. Like a cuisinart.
I wholeheartedly agree!!! I know I elevate every post with my comments; but that’s a given, being a coloratura and all. ;)
Vicryl, you would elevate our comments if you emoted in a low, throaty whisper!
So this is a serious proposal, meaning that the powers that be at Ricochet are evaluating how much effort to put into it. It’s in such a larval state right now that it is thrown out as a joke if it’s panned, but as a priority if it’s well-received. Ha-ha, only serious. The proposal is to add buttons which are supposed to help shape the conversation. By which they mean elevate the discourse. By which they mean improve the constituency. By which they mean perfect mankind one way or another. Thank but no thanks, thought police.
I’ll be waiting at digital Lubyanka with my own blindfold. I can tie a knot by myself, thank you very much.
Meanwhile, we get lectured about how to use the term “libertarian”, but hectored if you try to baseline conservatism.
Libertarianism is conservatism’s unsecured southern border.
I have some buttons which I suspect might have more of a grass-roots, you know conservative appeal.
TITSFTYPAWA: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but this post seems vaguely familiar.
ICHY.SU!CGYT?: Somehow, I haven’t seen your reply yet. Perhaps it is on the way.
TACOS: I suspect the rigor of your logic is weak at this point.
IIGEFTUSSRIGEFR: Well, at least there is a precedent.
Don’t forget…
HYKEGOMLSOGNME: Get off my lawn
You seem like the type that would need that one. ;)
-E
Lubyanka? No, that’s where they go. When Americans think big, they go to the moon. And that wasn’t a hoax, either.
How is this sort of teflon-brained deflection useful?
Oh.
p.s., thanks for the crappy insinuation.
I suspect it probably isn’t, and that I’m now procrastinating, as opposed to working. Back to work, Claire.
Good Morning Claire,
I had a good nights sleep. Now I feel that I can withstand the rigors of symbolic logic. It was always my impression that A <=> B is short for A implies B / B implies A. This is not just that you can substitute like an equals sign but that “Whenever A exists B will exist and whenever B exists A will exist.”
They are not an equivalence. For instance, “You always see Mr. G with Ms. B”. Mr. G and Ms. B are two different entities and they can not be substituted. However, it is true that whenever you see Mr. G you will also see Ms. B and whenever you see Ms. B you will see Mr. G.
Wait..wait…I need coffee…Igor set up the coffee IV drip would you.
Regards,
Jim
Come on, Ball, lighten up. Here’s the worst case scenario of what’s really happening here.
You’ve seen old Fifties movies on TV, battle-of-the-sexes comedies where a beautiful efficiency expert clashes with the crusty guy who runs the factory; or the beautiful corrections department expert fights with the warden over her plans to paint the walls pink, and leave throw pillows scattered around the prison, or the beautiful new judge in family court flummoxes the lawyers who’ve been accustomed to having their own way. Or the beautiful foreign policy expert returns to a website with tags like EGBOK (Everything’s Going to be OK), which drives a certain military man crazy, because he knows things aren’t going to be okay.
As for your baseline, go ahead and draw it. I’m damn sure you’ll draw the line to exclude me, and when I draw the line you can bet every nickel you’ll be on the wrong side of it. So give the lady a break.
Say, did you hear the one about the girl who went to art school, but never knew when to draw the line? Yeah, it’s not the newest gag in the world…
Conservatism is not a person. I wouldn’t dream of excluding you. I would like to know which conservative line I am on the wrong side of. I assume that’s just rhetoric.
Yeah, we’ll just lighten up. The first 39,999 feet are smooth sailing.
Yep, it’s rhetoric, meant to draw fire away from the innocent Berlinski.
Your metaphor is a good one: if we’re 40,000 feet above ground level, we all know how it goes.
But I think we’re at 339,999 feet. That’s what the argument is about.
Huh?
By the way, that’s rhetoric. I think you’ve already gotten as close to making a point as you’re going to get.
Songwriter
re Peter Meza #10 – Hits the nail on the head. If only there was a “triple-dog like” button….
http://ricochet.com/archives/14-principled-anti-war-celebrities-who-may-have-been-kidnapped/comment-page-1/#comment-1458829