Online community idea
-
Apparently toxicity on the internet is a very real problem. When that I experienced first hand in, say, Blizzard's gaming forum. Though not all community are toxic, CodeProject would be quite positive by contrast. What I am investigate is, in the remote possible event where I create my own community website) how to fight the toxicity... Any idea welcome! I was also wondering about a reputation system. Is there any reputation system which worked? I think we can safely say StackOverflow is a total failure here... But I am interested in other example as well...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
Do what CodeProject does: flag every message with a word in the middle of a sentence that starts with a capital letter and stick that message in limbo "while a web rep reviews your message", and keep it in limbo until any "flow" to the message thread is broken. Brilliant AI there.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
toxicity
AKA somebody offended me. Aaand no it's not a real problem. Aaand any "solution" to this "problem" is going to be much worse the actual "problem"
GeoGame for Windows Phone | The Lounge Explained In 5 Minutes
Mladen Janković wrote:
AKA somebody offended me.
I'd have to disagree. I'm quite capable of recognizing toxic behavior without being offended by it. Just because someone is being a jerk, doesn't mean I have to let it affect me. My emotions are my own, and it is my choice to feel offended or not; no-one can make me feel that way.
Mladen Janković wrote:
Aaand no it's not a real problem.
Again I'll have to disagree. When you build a community, no matter its location or size, you want its members to actually enjoy being members. Otherwise the community self destructs.
Mladen Janković wrote:
Aaand any "solution" to this "problem" is going to be much worse the actual "problem"
Any solution to the problem is, to some degree, a form of censorship. I disagree with censorship to a point; but in this case I feel it is fully necessary. As a user, you have zero right to participate in any community. You are allowed to participate in a community at the discretion of its existing members. If you step out of line, the community will deal with you as they see fit. If that means removing your messages or banning you completely, it is within their rights to do so. On the other side of the coin, as a member you have no obligation to participate in any given community, and if you don't like the state of things, are free to walk away at any given time.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
Apparently toxicity on the internet is a very real problem.
Personally I call the solution to that "turning off the computer and going outside to meet people IRL". People tend to act a lot more civilized face to face. And I say this as someone who's actually rather _anti-_social.
dandy72 wrote:
People tend to act a lot more civilized face to face.
The option of being punched in the face for being a jerk has a very calming effect on most people.
-
Mladen Janković wrote:
AKA somebody offended me.
I'd have to disagree. I'm quite capable of recognizing toxic behavior without being offended by it. Just because someone is being a jerk, doesn't mean I have to let it affect me. My emotions are my own, and it is my choice to feel offended or not; no-one can make me feel that way.
Mladen Janković wrote:
Aaand no it's not a real problem.
Again I'll have to disagree. When you build a community, no matter its location or size, you want its members to actually enjoy being members. Otherwise the community self destructs.
Mladen Janković wrote:
Aaand any "solution" to this "problem" is going to be much worse the actual "problem"
Any solution to the problem is, to some degree, a form of censorship. I disagree with censorship to a point; but in this case I feel it is fully necessary. As a user, you have zero right to participate in any community. You are allowed to participate in a community at the discretion of its existing members. If you step out of line, the community will deal with you as they see fit. If that means removing your messages or banning you completely, it is within their rights to do so. On the other side of the coin, as a member you have no obligation to participate in any given community, and if you don't like the state of things, are free to walk away at any given time.
Yeah, except Internet != community.
GeoGame for Windows Phone | The Lounge Explained In 5 Minutes
-
Yeah, except Internet != community.
GeoGame for Windows Phone | The Lounge Explained In 5 Minutes
Well, yeah, of course. But you didn't use the word internet, and neither did I. Super Lloyd did, but the post was about creating an online community, not creating a new internet without toxicity. So, what's your point?
-
Well, yeah, of course. But you didn't use the word internet, and neither did I. Super Lloyd did, but the post was about creating an online community, not creating a new internet without toxicity. So, what's your point?
Kyle Moyer wrote:
But you didn't use the word internet
Well I was quoting part where he talked about the Internet in general. I mean, we can split hair all night long if you're into that.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
So, what's your point?
I stated my point in OP - toxicity is not a problem on the Internet. And you all should keep your filthy hands off it, trying to regulate it as you're going to make a much bigger mess.
GeoGame for Windows Phone | The Lounge Explained In 5 Minutes
-
Kyle Moyer wrote:
But you didn't use the word internet
Well I was quoting part where he talked about the Internet in general. I mean, we can split hair all night long if you're into that.
Kyle Moyer wrote:
So, what's your point?
I stated my point in OP - toxicity is not a problem on the Internet. And you all should keep your filthy hands off it, trying to regulate it as you're going to make a much bigger mess.
GeoGame for Windows Phone | The Lounge Explained In 5 Minutes
Alright, that's fair. I didn't get that from your first post, so we were talking about (somewhat) different things. My apologies for any confusion. For the internet as a whole, I agree, toxicity isn't really an issue. And regulating the internet as a whole to try to prevent it, I also agree, is a really bad idea. Individual communities on the internet, however, particularly those frequented by the youngers of the population, tend to have toxicity problems, and those should be free to manage themselves as they see fit.
-
Alright, that's fair. I didn't get that from your first post, so we were talking about (somewhat) different things. My apologies for any confusion. For the internet as a whole, I agree, toxicity isn't really an issue. And regulating the internet as a whole to try to prevent it, I also agree, is a really bad idea. Individual communities on the internet, however, particularly those frequented by the youngers of the population, tend to have toxicity problems, and those should be free to manage themselves as they see fit.
-
I have two different opinions on that matter and I would very much appreciate a constructive discussion :) 1- One of the reasons people act differently on the internet is that they know that their actions will not be (severely) punished socially. In contrast to real life, whether it's a punch in the face, some prison time, or simply a disgusting look from onlookers, their actions are somewhat always followed by consequences. I feel that we must apply this on the internet as well; some sort of 'punishment' is needed. Recently for example, Blizzard implemented the 'Silent Sentence' a punishment that makes the offender not able to comment/post replies/etc, for a certain duration that doubles with each of his offenses. The only problem I see with that system, is that they relied on people to implement it (people are the one reporting the offender), and thus messing up the whole system. I'd say that we need to combine more moderators (replaced by AI in the future) with a punishment system; mimicking the real life cops system (minus the corruption). 2- Some of the younger crowd are still discovering their personalities, their traits, and are always looking for new forms of humor to make it their own. This is because there is a satisfaction in making people laugh, in making oneself more interesting [reference needed]. Sarcasm and black humor for example are a form of humor whether everyone likes or not. See how Roel bob for example, uses his very black humor to draw coders strips. Not everyone likes it but some people do. So how about implementing a system to give people recognition for their action? If someone replied sarcastically it does not mean that he is toxic, it means that he tends to like sarcasm as a humor. So recognize him by giving him sarcastic points; give others argumentation points; there could even be some advice points, etc. These points would stick to the user account so that onlookers can know whether it's worth following/reading this user or not. For example I personally tend to like more CommitStrip over Roelbob, so I would be more interested in reading what commitStrip would post. But both sites would benefit from this system as they would attract their target audience.
Hey long message.. and I was looking for ideas myself, not having much so far... As to problem you see with your idea #1, relying on people is pretty much what happened in real life. And being as good as real life would be an achievement! So.... I wouldn't worry! ;) As to 2, having a few reputation point (dark humor: +42) I am bothered by the permanence of it.. I am wondering about those.. and if I do, I would definitely have them decay (maybe lose 20% of them every month...)
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Any online community/reputation system based on subjectivity will never work for everyone.
peer review and community feedback positive and negative points for user to grant points, requires rank X. to get rank X requires positive/negative score that you decide. if to much negative, your posts start to not be seen by others Opt in require to see negative ppl your community becomes what the community wants. If have moderators that grant positive points for behaviour you do not want, blame the moderator and your self for allowing the moderator to rise to rank X. to allow lower ranks to contribute all to grant negative points - which if enough negatives - helps highlight post to moderator. and you get affected by choice of moderator - - extra points if same as moderator - possible negative if different to moderator and your "trolls" can stay in, posting not knowing that only a few people will see their comments. and if want to see such comments, you can opt in. Everyone wins.