Oxygenating the flame in threads was Re: [extropy-chat] afuturist prediction

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:02 AM, Brett Paatsch wrote in response to Eugen:

>
>
>> > Crap is poisonous.
>>
>
> So don't do it on the list (which you and I agree on), but the second
> point is when someone else does, don't eat it, don't praise it, don't
> encourage it.
>

It is good to actively prohibit others from shitting in the communal  
waterway.  It is insufficient and unhealthy to simply ignore the  
turds floating by.

>
>> > It causes a slippery slope: everybody's standards slide. The best
>> > contributors soon leave, because they have the least tolerance
>> > for crap.
>>
>
> I don't know that that is true.

I do.  I argued over it at first too but I am convinced by the  
evidence inside myself and watching the process in various lists more  
closely.

>
> It might be. Damien Broderick and Hal have said things like that that
> I took seriously because I consider Damien and Hal to be amongst
> the bed quality posters.

That isn't a good way to validate such a hypothesis.

>
> I think Hal said "bad posters drive away good".  But I'm not sure
> that even Hal or Damien are always the best judges of what is and
> isn't going anywhere. Nor would I be and I definately don't want
> to be.
>

Not sure I see what you meant to say.

> But if you consider what is implied when people say they want more
> quality isn't it that they want other people to post more good quality
> stuff? Or censorship?
>

They want less crap to wade through to maybe get to something good.

> Re the first, of course we'd all like to have more great stuff (as we
> variously see it, to read, but that involves someone taking the time
> to write it and they are not paid for doing so).
>

People aren't paid for writing crap either.  But it is easier to  
write and will thus likely predominate if not suppressed.

>
>>  The trolls take over. Eventually, not even idiots can
>>  tolerate idiots, volume goes down, and the list dies. Consider this
>>  a caricature of a common pattern, a pattern I've seen very often.
>>
>
> I consider it a theory. Yours. I'm open to your evidence in its  
> favour.
>

Well of course it is a theory.  The evidence is in front of and all  
around you.

>
>> This is why shunning doesn't work online.
>>
>
> If one is part of the noise and one is not being read then shunning
> isn't going to work of course. If the people you like to talk to won't
> talk to you *maybe* there is a reason.  Maybe you've pissed them
> off.  It is very hard to shun someone that is already not paying
> attention to you, so that is why I suggest coupling the tactic with
> a database. I suggest *actively* using and processing the list. Keep
> track of the interests of people you want to talk to. Repay good
> posts with good posts.
>

So why not track who has given up on reading your stuff?  The  
feedback might be a very good thing to have.  It is hard to calibrate  
ourselves without feedback.  It seems like you are only into positive  
feedback.  But that is insufficient for a  system to self-correct.
>
>

- samantha