Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger "politeness code" on this list?

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:20:31 -0700

In my experience, online communities are like offline communities, their tone and spirit depends on their members. Moderation seldom "fixes" anything, and content-based moderation only works if the community is intended to reflect the ideas and values of the moderator. But sometimes a respected moderator (and I think Ben is very respected here) can act as a sort of father figure, encouraging a particular style of interaction.
I have been a member of many online communities where the interactions were friendly, supportive, and productive, where negative language and attitude was the rare exception. So I don't think that style of interaction *has* to be there. It may be that I just need to keep looking for such a community of AI researchers. I sure hope it isn't inherent in AI work itself -- though the intellectually abstract and scientifically unsettled aspects of it do make it is the sort of field that can attract people who believe they know more than they do and who are insecure enough to need to disparage others around them. (Personally, I'm not at all sure I know anything, as I've found it's an area where I can *so* easily fool myself; and I believe that virtually anyone's approach on this list *might* be of great value.) 


(Credentials: I've been involved in online communities since the '70s, 
occasionally working as an expert in the field, most recently as manager 
of the Social Computing Group at Microsoft Research, which I left in 
2001 to work on AI.)


Terren Suydam wrote:

Just to throw my 2 cents in here. The short version: if you want to improve the list, look to yourself. Don't rely on moderation. 


If you have something worth posting, post it without fear of rude responses. If 
people are rude, don't be rude back. Resist the urge to fire off the quick 
reply and score points (I often write the inflammatory reply and then delete 
it, just to get it out of my system). Don't feed the trolls. Thicken your skin: 
see personal attacks for what they are - refuge for someone without a 
reasonable rebuttal.

I've been participating in online forums of various sorts basically since the 
internet began in earnest and there is nothing unique about the behavior here. 
People are rude. The anonymity and discorporate nature of virtual communication 
lowers inhibitions in a big way. Moderation for anything but clear-cut 
violations of established rules is almost never helpful because it either 
stifles discussion or the forum devolves into trials about the fairness of the 
moderation.

Moderation based on subjective quality of content is a terrible idea, imo. I 
would never agree to moderate a forum based on anything but etiquette or 
on-topic-ness. Assuming the rules are spelled out and warnings are given and 
behavior is enforced fairly and consistently, moderation can help. But it takes 
a fairly proactive moderator to do all that.

Terren


--- On Sun, 8/3/08, Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  

From: Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger "politeness code" on this list?
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 12:52 PM
I have never posted to the list before for exactly the

reasons under 
discussion. It seems to me that the list is dominated, in
terms of 
volume, not, I think, in terms of people, by two types of
posts: 1) You 
don't understand theory x, which explains why your idea
or approach is 
unworkable; you need to spend hours (perhaps days) reading
about that 
(my) theory. Or 2) You're an idiot and your ideas are

trash.

I am pursuing a line of research that I believe has

potential. It would 
be useful to have a place I could float ideas and get some
feedback. 
While I'm not particularly thin skinned, I don't
have the time to deal 
with excursions into entirely different theories or to deal
with the 
distractive emotional baggage that's so common here. I
would also be 
happy to provide feedback to posts by others, but I
don't want to get 
dragged into heated and often content-sparse threads of

discussion.

I have seen very good and productive threads on this list,

but they tend 
to be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items
from the list, 
and follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or
involves 
people who have posted more reasonable items in the past.
As with most 
lists, 90% of the content is generated by 10% of the
members. In this 
case, that involves much unnecessary distraction and

unpleasantness.

Giving posters "time out"s for personal attacks

might go a long way 
toward calming the list down and encouraging some of the
people like me 
to become more involved. Also, a list FAQ that includes
pointers to some 
of the theories that get repeated endlessly, together with
encouragement 
to the posters to just post the FAQ's URL rather than
repeating the 
entire theory, might reduce the repetition. (Wasn't
there a wiki area 
exactly for that started a while ago?)


Anyway, that's my two cents.

On 8/3/2008 6:13 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

    

Hi,

Here are a couple random responses to suggestions by

      

others within 
    

this thread...

Nesov wrote, and Mark Waser concurred:

"
I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free

      

posts (and posters

    

who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low

      

signal-to-noise

    

ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding

      

moderation, but

    

moderation is needed for content, not just

      

"politeness".

    

"

My response is that

-- Moderation for politeness, and for *form* of posts,

      

is fairly easy 
    

to do in an objective way

-- Moderation for content is a lot more subjective,

      

and I don't want 
    

to be perceived as imposing my own particular views on

      

AGI on this 
    

mailing list.  So I'm a bit wary of this.

Hector suggested

"
What about also some minimal credentials (not

      

necessarily academical 
    

achievements but a minimal proof of knowledge and

      

logical thought) as 
    

it is required at other mailing lists...
"

However, it seems to me that the most boring,

      

repetitive and 
    

irritating conversations on this list generally

      

involve individuals 
    

who *do* have "above minimal credentials" in

      

AGI.

    

The only exception I can think of would be some of the

      

repetitive 
    

conversations involving Mike Tintner, who isn't

      

professionally 
    

experienced in AGI or directly related fields of

      

science so far as I 
    

know (though I could be wrong)

I do think that this list has recently become

      

dominated by long, 
    

somewhat repetitive arguments between a relatively

      

small number of 
    

people.  I myself have stopped reading or posting very

      

much partly 
    

because of this, even though I'm the list

      

administrator...

    

Ben


On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Mark Waser

      

<[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

        I don't notice rudeness so much, but

      

content-free posts (and

    

        posters
        who don't learn) are a problem on this

      

list. Low signal-to-noise

    

        ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in

      

avoiding moderation, but

    

        moderation is needed for content, not just

      

"politeness".

    

    Normally I try to avoid "me too" posts

      

-- but for those who felt

    

    my last e-mail was too long, this is the essence

      

of my argument

    

    (and very well expressed).

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir

      

Nesov"

    

    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

      

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>

    

    To: <[email protected]

      

<mailto:[email protected]>>

    

    Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:25 AM
    Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger

      

"politeness code"

    

    on this list?


        On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel

      

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]

    

        <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


            I think Ed's email was a bit harsh,

      

but not as harsh as

    

            many of Richard's
            (which are frequently full of language

      

like "fools",

    

            "rubbish" and so forth
            ...).

            Some of your emails have been pretty harsh

      

in the past too.

    

            I would be willing to enforce a stronger

      

code of

    

            politeness on this list if
            that is what the membership wants.  I have

      

been told

    

            before, in other
            contexts, that I tend to be overly

      

tolerant of rude behavior.

    

            Anyone else have an opinion on this?


        I don't notice rudeness so much, but

      

content-free posts (and

    

        posters
        who don't learn) are a problem on this

      

list. Low signal-to-noise

    

        ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in

      

avoiding moderation, but

    

        moderation is needed for content, not just

      

"politeness".

    

        -- 
        Vladimir Nesov

        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

      

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

    

        http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/


        -------------------------------------------
        agi
        Archives:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now

    

        RSS Feed:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/

    

        Modify Your Subscription:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;

    

        <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>

        Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





    -------------------------------------------
    agi
    Archives:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now

    

    RSS Feed:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/

    

    Modify Your Subscription:

      

https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;

    

    <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
    Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible

      

objections must be 
    

first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson




      

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    

*agi* | Archives

      

<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> 
    
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
Modify 
    

<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> 
Your Subscription 	[Powered by Listbox]
      

<http://www.listbox.com>

    
-------------------------------------------

agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

    




      



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


  



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com























					Reply via email to