6 added 126 characters in body
source | link

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) So? How's that different from what Steven proposed? Just put the parts of your discussion that are for the idea on one side and the parts of your discussion that are against on the other. Seems more organized to me! (Joshua Gitlin)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)
  • Look at this very mockup, I see only contra points get feedback, while pro points seems untouched. Would this be a hole?

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) So? How's that different from what Steven proposed? Just put the parts of your discussion that are for the idea on one side and the parts of your discussion that are against on the other. Seems more organized to me! (Joshua Gitlin)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) So? How's that different from what Steven proposed? Just put the parts of your discussion that are for the idea on one side and the parts of your discussion that are against on the other. Seems more organized to me! (Joshua Gitlin)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)
  • Look at this very mockup, I see only contra points get feedback, while pro points seems untouched. Would this be a hole?
5 added 271 characters in body
source | link

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) So? How's that different from what Steven proposed? Just put the parts of your discussion that are for the idea on one side and the parts of your discussion that are against on the other. Seems more organized to me! (Joshua Gitlin)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) So? How's that different from what Steven proposed? Just put the parts of your discussion that are for the idea on one side and the parts of your discussion that are against on the other. Seems more organized to me! (Joshua Gitlin)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)
4 Added concern with 'proposals'.
source | link

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)

To demonstrate why this would be more constructive than using the current 'Q&A' format, I'll use this very discussion as an example of how a pros/cons format could have been used to construct this discussion instead.

Discussion: Could we use a pros/cons list to format discussions?

You can't up or down vote on this topic, as contrasted with the current system where you up or down vote on the entire proposal.

Pro

  • (x up/y down) The Q&A format is not designed with discussions in mind. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) People have a tendency to stick to one opinion after they formed it. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This can counter political/social/biased thinking. (Jeremy Banks)

Contra

  • (x up/y down) I can very well participate in a discussion without being 100% for or against something in the current system. (slhck)
  • (x up/y down) Implementing this would require too big of a change. (Steven Jeuris)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) I find it worthwhile to invest in this implementation, given the positive effect it could have on forming discussions. A big part of the infrastructure of the current Q&A format could be used. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) The list would need to basically 'freeze' every single thing cited so that future changes (e.g. voting) doesn't obfuscate the intent of the proposal in the future. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) How is that different from edits done to questions and answer currently? (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) How should the front page be restructured? (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Not every meta post is a good fit for my proposed pro/con format. There should be a clear difference between 'discussions' and other meta Q&A questions. Right now the tag is used for that. (Steven Jeuris)
  • (x up/y down) This is not a good fit for proposals. In order for the list to support or not support a proposal in ten years, those list items need to be able to show and be read exactly as they were when something was proposed. (Tim Post)
    • Answer: (x up/y down) Agreed, you are right it probably shouldn't be used for e.g. tags. I would restrict it to pure discussions. Conclusions from these discussions could be drawn and mentioned in feature requests. (Steven Jeuris)
3 Added another contra of Tim Post.
source | link
2 Added contra opinion of Tim Post.
source | link
1 Post Made Community Wiki
source | link