I've seen a forum that worked this way... while it didn't help that it was all in one narrow column of posts, putting replies to specific posts next to those posts made it nigh impossible to tell in what order the conversation happened without carefully scrutinizing each and every post date. Furthermore, it made it difficult to discern new posts from old posts without carefully reading each.
Sounds like a kind of mailing list. I've seen those systems for tech support stuff and older websites. Not a big fan of it, and definitely an example of what to try to avoid, although a debate structure IS going to be very similar.
---
Eagleon: I wouldn't bother too much with content. I think people can warm up to the idea that they're no longer writing posts, but simply proposing small, indivisible arguments for a specific purpose (to add an attack to an argument they disagree with).
---
Alright, so I need to put together a proposal for a kickstarter. The way I see it, I need
1) Details on exactly what I'm trying to accomplish.
2) Background research. People who have done similar things, and the differences between what they've done and what I'll do.
Angle: I believe whether my research group ends up participating more directly or not, !!SCIENCE!! is meant to be used (for !!FUN!! ?), so I would again suggest you read our papers on the subject because they seem to be so close to what you want to achieve. Some of the theory can be easily adapted and fine-tuned to different purposes, but some of it can't. The articles also mention quite a few other similar systems, developed within academia or just plain websites, like
www.debate.org. Either way, it's probably worth a read to help with both these questions.
I would just say this: most systems essentially let people vote on who they want to win. That's it. It's simple, and it uses the notion of crowd support, but it does not take into account the logic behind the debate. The system you're proposing has an underlying structure that represents logic that you
can exploit to obtain results to debates. SAA gives you outcomes of debates that tell you the degree to which each and every argument is accepted. It's not just "side A wins and side B loses". Some arguments from A might be accepted, some might not, some might be accepted so-so... and this notion of acceptance is based on both crowd support
and from applying logic to the debate's structure. It's not some random idea that comes from a random algorithm - we've studied it, understood how it behaves and proved a series of desirable properties (like there is always one solution, and there's at most one solution to the debate). No point in debating if everyone can always be right because there are infinite solutions.
Also, quite a few of the suggestions in this thread propose dividing arguments into types, attacks into types, and essentially trying to classify everything into its own little niche that interacts differently with all the other little niches. While this could definitely be interesting, and might ultimately be what you want, I would warn again that simple systems work best and are easier to use. Unless you can absolutely justify the
need for them, by having a specific debate instance where that feature is needed to make sense of it, they will just add confusion to the mix.
3) Details on how I'll spend the money. Who I'll hire, what they'll do, etc.
This is very important. You need someone with qualifications that he has demonstrated. I would say that something as big as what you're envisioning can hardly be done by someone who is learning to code or has some basic notions. We're talking about something that, if done properly, COULD revolutionise the way people interact over the Internet. We're talking about a system that needs to support most platforms, from webforums, social networks, all the way down to apps on most mobile devices. Ideally, arguments could be shared between most of these systems.
You still deserve to make a living off of what you do if you can do it well, the question is only do you want to do this (or anything else) for a living.
I don't see any way to make a living off of just this project without undermining the purposes for which I do it.
I would say you'd want monetisation to be a side-effect of whatever this ends up, like Google making money off ads, but not really having things you can buy off them. I would really love to see something like this be free for use. If it's pay-to-use, you'll massively limit the potential userbase (almost the entire interwebs?).
Poll
6 (31.6%)
Author
Topic: Agora, A better forum (Open Source Project): Now with Github and test site. (Read 81743 times)