I think the popularity of goobster's post goes to show that the pressure to be as "thoughtful" as possible is pretty high, and that pressure can be surprisingly intimidating. It was actually a deterrent to my participation when I first started lurking around here... and I'm sure I'm not the only person who has felt that way on Hubski. Being able to discuss conflicting viewpoints is what keeps this place interesting, which means the occasional tactless exchange is inevitable. That's not a problem, but being able to approach a sensitive conversation at a different pace can be helpful for someone less familiar with each user's idiosyncrasies. It was nice to have a period during which I could edit my comment or reconsider my perspective without being immediately bludgeoned back into silence by someone like kleinbl00 (obviously, nothing against you, kleinbl00 - your contributions keep things lively, but yours is definitely not a style of discourse I was in a hurry to engage with). The experiment may not have had any positive impact for the Old Guard, but they've had years to get comfortable with each other, and they can exchange jabs without issue. The delay in visibility actually encouraged me to participate more. It gave me the chance to find my bearings with a smaller subsection of the community, and now I feel comfortable expressing a thought without always feeling like I'm about to defend a dissertation. I might never have participated at all had mk skipped the experiment altogether. I don't know if there are any other new users who found the same benefit, but I wouldn't mind having the delay as an option I could toggle for my own posts.
We also need to recognize that not many people communicate well via long form text-based media, like most posts/comments here on Hubski. Writing and debate are learned skills, and learning to communicate a clearly structured thought/story via text is not a talent many people have. (See: All of the emails you get at work.) There are a few of us Hubskis who actually have made our living (and vocation or avocation) from writing professionally - me, KB, veen, etc. - while others may have equally valid points or thoughts, but simply have a hard time putting them into well-structured arguments/stories. I see many conversations on here devolve specifically because the structure of the person's argument is incorrect or misleading, and might be obscuring a perfectly valid point they are having a hard time articulating. And I think there is a generational divide with these forms of communications, too. I've been debating online since the mid-1980s, so I just simply have more experience in this form than almost anyone else on here. That doesn't make me right more often, it simply makes it easier for me to make a fully compelling argument in support of my position more quickly and effectively than someone without that experience. Or, to tear their argument to shreds when they fall into logical fallacies and internal logical inconsistencies in their position. And getting called out on your lack of skill by an imperious "old person" is never going to go well... which is something I try to remember... ... but is also why I am muted by at least two prolific members of the Hubski community today. (Hangs head.)
I think you're right - there is a tendency to see discussion as something adversarial, particularly among people who strongly tie their identities to their ability to make a compelling argument in a written format, regardless of the actual validity of their points. Doubly so if writing is their profession. Writing/debate skills could be an obstacle for participation for a lot of users, however I personally feel that navigating eccentric personalities in an insular community with strongly held values can be a greater challenge. I can also see how generational differences could factor in. I know I am often inhibited by my fear of being accidentally disrespectful - an inhibition not always shared by older folks, in my experience. Though, I expect this tendency is likely to fade as I age and learn to care less about what others feel about my opinions. I guess I just don't see why a conversation should "devolve" because someone chose to "rip" the other person's argument "to shreds" instead of furthering the discussion, the latter of which can sometimes require a little more finesse. Case in point - my very first comment on this site was actually a response to a post of yours about the use of the phrase "wine-dark sea" in greek epic poetry. Another user commented dismissing the post outright as stoner-level navel-gazing. I also disagreed with the presuppositions in your post, but I thought the idea was worth talking about, so I said something. I think there's a huge difference between pointing out where someone's argument or thought process fails, and just being an asshole to relieve some pent up angst (often the easier option). Of course, as a newbie here, it's likely that I don't yet understand how all the old-timers relate to each other, so what may seem like blatant disrespect at face value could just be old friends sparring with no ill intent. Another point in favor of letting me have my own "don't post this for six hours" switch, haha.
I remember your comment! And appreciated your input. I still think only you and I understood what I was talking about in that thread, though... :-) It's a defensive response when someone blows holes in your comment, logic, or presentation. Professional writers are used to getting feedback on their writing, logic, and how the ideas are presented. We take editing at face value, and try to lock our hearts/feelings away in a fireproof safe before reading the editors' notes. It's part of the job. But non-professional writers feel very personally attacked when their argument/logic/position is shown to be flawed in some way. Rarely, if ever, do they come back with a better-framed argument, or rewording their position to be clearer and more legible by people with different backgrounds and biases. The knee-jerk natural reaction is to punch back, because they feel like the feedback was an attack. They are retaliating. So things devolve into them being rude, because they don't have the same agility with words that their 'attacker' has... so they resort to their base instincts: to fling poo instead of learning where their argyment was deficient and iterating on their debate tactics or points. (Funny aside: I am active in several "helpful" sub-reddits where people ask questions, and look to others for answers. I am frequently accused of being a shill for a product/person/company because my writing style is informative, thorough, and I use formatting like bold section headers, italicized notes, and links to sources. But it's just a side effect of the nature of my work as a writer. That's what I do for a living; present ideas in a clear and detailed manner for specific audiences. I want my answers to be useful to as broad a group of people as possible, and easy to read. So I use layout and presentation cues most commonly found in marketing blather. So people often flag my account as spam or whatever, and the mods have to step in and smack down my haters.) ...I guess I just don't see why a conversation should "devolve" because someone chose to "rip" the other person's argument "to shreds" instead of furthering the discussion, the latter of which can sometimes require a little more finesse...
I really really appreciate the thoughtful comments - thats probably half the reason why I come to this site - to see the perspectives of a cool group of people, and importantly, the same group of people. I love kleinbl00's norman rockwell rants and _refugee_'s art galleries. But I agree though, it does make a high bar for a comment. I myself basically only comment on pubskis, light "facebook-level shitposting" like the movie post, and meta things (like this!), and maybe that's a good thing, but it definitely is a thing
The thoughtful discussion is 100% the reason I come to Hubski. I come here because Hubski never fails to deliver stimulating posts and conversation, and that makes this place an oasis from all the other noise on the internet. I mention the intimidation factor in part because the experimental delay alleviated a lot of my apprehension about commenting, and also because I've noticed a lot of long-time users expressing that they feel the quality of discussion has changed somehow. As a newer user, I don't have a frame of reference to make a comparison between present day Hubski and how things may have been in the past. mk has pointed out that there was a dip in the general respectfulness of interaction, but the comments on the posts discussing the changes to the site suggest several Hubski veterans see lack of user engagement/activity as the problem. As an outsider, I suspect these two phenomena are related, but I'm curious about what users with longer tenure think - and I'm especially curious about the perspective of other longstanding users who tend not to participate.
I'm glad to hear that the experiment wasn't entirely negative for everyone. I also felt that there was some difference in the tenor of the initial replies, however I could just be imagining it. I did consider that those people that follow you are the ones most likely to engage in a positive way.
I imagine it would be too cumbersome to include something like that as an option for individual posts, but why couldn't it be something I can switch on/off on my own profile as needed? Let's say I'm having a rough few weeks, and I'm a little on edge, and I know that maybe I need to more carefully consider what I say to others for a time - I can turn on the delay option, and then only the person I'm responding to and people who follow me will be able to see my post right away, and then it can appear for everyone else after a set time frame.
So your own waiting period, shall we say. You hit the egg timer and if you don't go back and do anything, it publishes you after twelve hours or six or whatever. I think that's a great idea. Maybe ditch the "contribute" button and replace it with "comment" and "commit" with a pull-down timer or something. Then if I click on my name it'll show me all my comments, including the ones that are drafts, in a draft color.
That's an interesting idea. What if the non-follower visibility delay was initially set to say, 6 hours, but could be toggled by the user between 0 and 12? Spammers would not know that they had a delay, and users could adjust theirs as they saw fit? TBH I would probably set mine to 3 hours.