People are humans, and humans feel a need to express their approval or disapproval.

The culture is much more influenced by which crowd is attracted by the site than by any attempts to encourage good behavior.

When you get your edit function off the ground you'll see a marked improvement. I've typed things into the new system that I've later thought better of (I'm talking seconds later). In the old days I'd just go back in delete it and leave a note saying "Sorry, rethought that!"

The edit function's really going to help a lot.

Funny snark would be at the tip of the pyramid, right?

1) I think it's important to not take comments personally. It's only an argument on your screen. When you log off, it's over and your dog wants to walk, your cat wants petting and your boyfriend (or girlfriend, wife, husband) wants time, your peers, colleagues, and professors want attention and your parents and siblings want to know how you're doing. You know - life outside.

I know that things get said and things happen on threads that can make one angry, but that is more a function of instant response and facelessness of the whole encounter. Personally, what helps me is the belief that I know less than anyone on this site. That perspective always keeps me polite and also, we can only speak from our own experience.

2) Snark uber alles.

Thanks for seeking input, Andrew.

To have a culture of conversation it matters how easy or difficult it is to determine if someone has responded to or commented on a post or a comment we made in some thread.

As it is, in order to do this, we have first to enter the relevant thread and then scroll down through it to find our comment and see if someone has replied or not. If it's a thread we started, we have to scroll down to identify the new comments. I doubt I am alone in finding this process cumbersome and consuming of more time than I have or want to spend at times.

I understand that work is underway, or will be underway in the near future, on developing a "tracker" function. I hope this new feature can come online as soon as possible, and that it will address this issue. Are you able to comment with information on where that process stands at this time, or at least what the intentions or goals are?

Where would the following styles fit in?

Refuting the argument by calling into question its premises
versus
Going off on a tangent

(bearing in mind that it might be difficult to distinguish between these two)

I see that happen a lot here, and at times it drives me nuts. These are the threads that contain indents to about 20 levels deep. But if the premises actually are questionable, I see this as a legitimate style of argument, and I think it cross-sects several of the layers in the charts, not just one.

Yeah, contradiction is a non-starter.

One thing we could definitely use: an "Ignore" button. Many times, the ad hominem attacks are launched in an attempt to make the other person go away. An Ignore button is much nicer and more efficient.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with uncivil conversation, as long as there are no death threats or whatever. Some of the best discussions I've had are with people I've vehemently disagreed with. We scream and fight and call each other names, but that doesn't mean we hate each other. Usually it just means that the other guy is a complete idiot. :)

Ad hominem and name-calling

Andrew, there is a problem of both fairness and efficiency in proscribing these two uglies utterly. It goes to an old problem: using terms like "forum" and "community", not to mention yelling "fire" with terms like "freedom-of-speech" while seldom following long-standing conventions of parliamentary custom, usage, and law.

For instance, name calling is allowed when it is "gentlemanly", albeit obtusely and humorously belittling.

And, ad hominem is allowable in refutation if and only if responding to a predicate where some or all of (i) undisclosed conflicts of interest, (ii) arguments from presumed but no recognized authority, or (iii) just sycophancy comprise most of the initial point that stands otherwise.

This is a real problem in the designation and conduct of "credentialed" state blogs at the Democratic National Convention where the state parties in questions are, often, self-perpetuating patronage-chains, comprised mostly of sycophants operating from behind a perpetual cloud of "permanent campaign" spin.

That certainly includes the notoriously chaotic conventions and unproductive committees where there is mostly covert negotiation and overt bargaining but little, if any, deliberation, hence flimsy compromises or even corrupt deals where decision and resolution should be.

Parliamentary authorities correctly note than all forms of digital communication fall short of the requirements of an open assembly or fair hearing.

There are theorectical but not any commonplace digital tools I know of for blogs and such that can complement live events by providing elements of notice, disclosure, submission of evidence, circulation and mark-up of drafts, additions and corrections to agenda or minutes, and, of course, recording and archiving of non-secret votes.

An obviously large and immediate contribution to the practical art of efficient deliberation -- the whole purpose of Henry Martyn Robert's work on rules of order would be issuance and authentication of credentials.

Here I think "the community" has a root problem: allowing anonymity and spoofing but whining about the discourteous and irresponsible discourse that follows.

But, I would add that application of the Seven Laws of Identity to the problem of credentialing members of a community might mitigate all the, so far, irremediable problems that ponderous "terms and conditions" of usage and treacly "netiquette" sermons have not in about twenty years now.

HINT in cyberspace I am often thought to be a "pedantic prick". That is rude terminology, but true enough. So, how does one deal with a medium that does not rise to the level of of proficient deliberation and debate, but descends regularly into something like grafitti, implying the practical absence of the sort of discourse usually though necessary for a republican democracy.