Woo! Yes, I agree entirely. I’ve brought up these arguments before as well

Although, Discus/Discourse are pretty obscure.

Discord is pretty good and the current mainstream for gaming, and a
growingly popular media for nomics (Infinite Nomic and Now we Nomic are
there)! It doesn’t favor essay-length replies though but it’s an extremely
agile and powerful platform, it’s basically IRC on super-steroids.

Although, if Agora is housed there and it really catches on, I believe it
would start to be populated by people and chatter that is a lot less
serious and academic than the usual Agora, because of the
younger/anonymous/less mature demography of Discord users. Infinite Nomic
is a great example of this, and its got a lot more activity than the
serious (and dying) Now we Nomic - it’s got loads of fun, casual chat and
banter. It has also got extra misc channels and bots like ones for
videogames or porn - which in the dominant and juvenile Doritos-and-Mtn-Dew
culture around gaming and Discord, having stuff like that is status quo.

I don’t think housing Agora in Discord would be good, but imo the IRC chat
should be updated to be a Discord server instead - or at least a Slack
server like BN has, which is funcionally identical to Discord but it has a
much more professional connotation.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 01:15, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> Hi Agorans! Please put the pitchforks down - I’m here with a question, not
> a request.
> It’s my view that the Rules and the structural properties of the fora in
> which Agora is played have a sympathetic relationship with one another. The
> Rules and CFJ case law combine to treat email as the preferred format for
> playing Agora, and in turn email contains properties that make it uniquely
> attractive to Agora’s players.
> Rule 478 (“Fora”) sets out the basic requirements for an Agoran forum:
> >       Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> >       any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
> >       be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person
> >       create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some
> >       players' fora access over others.
> A forum must, in technical implementation, be reasonably equitable,
> >       Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
> >       forum.
> It is the responsibility of each player to ensure that they can view each
> fora, before it is the responsibility of the forum’s operator to ensure the
> players can view the forum they operate,
> >       A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
> >       all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
> >       public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
> >       message is considered a public message in its own right. A person
> >       "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.
> A forum is a collection of messages, which may include sub-messages,
> are collectively a pretty good description of the email system, as
> deployed on the internet.
> However, the use of email (and the use of email distribution lists, in
> particular) is far out of favour on the internet at large. While most
> people can be taught to operate mailman and how to effectively participate
> in an email distribution list discussion, those skills are no longer as
> prevalent in the internet userbase as they may once have been. This shows
> up for Agora in terms of people failing to subscribe, or failing to
> understand where their messages have gone, and it probably shows up in
> terms of potential players we never hear about because they completely fail
> the initial task of “subscribe to the list” without asking for help.
> (Lurking in Freenode’s ##nomic has convinced me that that barrier exists,
> at least for some users.)
> With that in mind, I have two questions.
> 1. What, if any, web-based discussion systems would be effective for
> supporting Agora as it is today?
> I did a cursory survey of the state of the art, and it appears that
> web-based discussions are dominated by:
> * Discus, for discussions associated with some parent document (generally
> a blog post or news item),
> * Discourse, for open-ended discussion venues dedicated to specific
> subject matter, and
> * Social Media (as exemplified by Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit), for
> freeform conversation.
> None of these exactly map to the forum criteria established in Rule 478:
> Discus, for example, imposes a tree-shaped interface, and provides a
> completely separate discussion for each parent document, while social media
> systems invariably interpose some kind of attention-seeking algorithmic
> ordering, and often algorithmic *removal*, between author and reader. It
> would be quite hard to collate out a single, chronological list of messages
> (required by the final paragraph of Rule 478) from any of those systems.
> 2. What, if anything, would need to be amended to allow something like
> Agora to be played in a venue other than email?
> My real motivation here is to find ways to adapt Agora’s decision-making
> systems for other use cases. I think Agora’s model of asynchronous
> deliberation, its system of votes, AI, and document power ratings, and its
> mechanisms for inclusion are a powerful alternative to the kinds of chaos I
> run into when organizing gaming groups, and I’ve got a personal interest in
> trying to use it to structure a user-owned cooperative enterprise in
> another sphere.
> -o

Reply via email to