A Constructive Argument Server
Inspired by at least 2 things:
- TS::DisputationArena
- Discussion lists closer to home
Is it possible to augment the usually-somewhat-liberal approach to how we sculpt conversations on-line? That's to say, mailing lists and web forums are great for letting people chat, but if you want to let them also filter into a more structured, abstract view of the actual information being presented, then perhaps they're not enough.
I can see 2 ways of enhancing AConversation Server along these lines:
Ensure more "automatic" feedback (other than just other people's replies) to posters, e.g. links to material that may be relevant to their post, previous posts, etc. This focuses on "advancing the individual".
Provide a way to congregate points made, either automatically (or through some emergent "rating" system by the group members), or manually (e.g. an edited summary).
Further thoughts...
- How can "information" be separated from "discussion"? That's not to say that an argument should be replaced by, say, a Wiki-editing process, as the flow fo the conversation is equally important in terms of a) progressing ideas and b) tracking the discussion. But how much, say, vitriol within a discussion is dependent on a more personal, nym-based level, rather than simply the points at hand? How would "discussions" go if you weren't necessarily sure who was saying what? (i.e. more like a collaborative reasoning process)
- How much measure can you take in terms of defining the rules for the server? e.g. by laying down rules, you automatically prune certain demographics out - but then, doesn't that happen if you don't define rules too? Is there a way to bring together this "filtering" paradox?
Slightly different (more for trading disputes rather than philosophical discourse) but may have some good points...
Also worth thinking about how debates/arguments are settled in the real world. See Settling Arguments.
(See also: Conversation Is AFlow )
