Thanks for the write up, just wanted to note that I read through all of this. I get what you're saying about the meta now, clearly I didn't fully understand why that was bad thing.
Speaking of meta though, I have to say, I still stand by my initial thought that an alternate rating mechanic is at least worth exploring, as the upvote/downvote feels like a system from an earlier era before anyone realized how large its social impact could be. I'd be interested to know what the ideal system that promotes a healthy convergence to the center (rather than one that increases polarization) would look like.
I can't deny the effects of great moderation/cultivation, that they are the most important part, but being a technologist I still want to see what happens when the variables are tweaked.
I have similar thoughts and have had the pleasure of participating and or moderating in a few very different scenarios.
Frankly, the product of that in part validates your desire better means and methods. There probably are some, and I believe analysis of higher order effects can filter many out.
I shared the other product, which is our ownership of our conversations. Shockingly low numbers of people understand the options available to them, and shockingly high numbers desire control of others as a potential solution to conversations they find disagreeable.
Norms are quite possibly the most powerful tools available to us because those speak more to what people can control.
The various systems we can invent tend to put an illusion of control over others, and or where they do actually control others they tend to be very expensive.
Consider the block.
Block someone and suddenly they just are not a part of your conversations, or your club, if say the block is to a group.
The blocked person, when individually blocked can basically carry on talking with everyone else. Often, that conversation is both invisible to the blocker as well as about them. The meta resulting from that is amazing! See Twitter.
Frankly, the block is more for the blockers benefit than it is for the person so blocked.
Where group blocks happen, they overlap with bans. This does a far better job of controlling others, but it then can involve others who had no part otherwise. Can force people to pick their friends, maintain confidences, lose touch with family, all sorts of higher order effects in play. All generally expensive.
Worse, is the reality of being offended, or breaking a rule, perhaps unclear, like "be nice."
We are each as offended as we think we are. There is no objective measure beyond coarse boundaries we find the hard way and those tend to propagate as norms. Interestingly, people will form clubs to avoid norms. See Reddit. Discord.
As I wrote earlier, and as a proponent of taking ownership of my conversations, I weigh speech and am difficult to offend and or angered by what basically rando people my tell me online.
When a clown calls you out as an ass, that is as laughable as it is low value. Who are they and what do they really know? Here is the insight hard won:
A good chuckle, coupled with a meaningful response that gives the clown an out to up their game is powerful and resonates in a community positive way.
Cries of righteous indignation also have power, but resonate in a community negative way.
The former meta has value and can yield insight and set strong norms community wide. Entertaining too.
The latter meta is low value, is a who is the bigger asshole type chat, and will set strong norms that offer future low value. Can be entertaining.
Negative entertainment is super easy because of how those play out.
The common thread here is meaning and how we come to know our minds and those of others through ambiguity. Text is pretty terrible. Understanding intent is difficult.
Norms are used here to great effect. There are a list of rules and I confess to not reading them. I do not have to. The norms here are very clear, and consequences generally scaled to feedback, but not harm, or be expensive.
So people can explore a little and find their way with few worries.
Here is an observation:
Moderate on value.
A troll, for example, can obtain high value for a very low investment in many places.
One post can get thousands involved and the troll is entertained for a song.
To the community, that one post was expensive!
So what to do?
I, with some others, employed the concept of value and norms to pretty great effect.
We required toxic people to include a benign phrase in their posts, which were otherwise allowed.
They hated that, but also talked about it. The norms were to help people add value, not be toxic.
It also inverted the entertainment. Suddenly the troll was not entertained and many members were!
If it escalates, then deny them 4 letter words. Five, three, less? More? Ok. Just no 4 letter ones.
And so on.
With the right norms, a group very quickly becomes inoculated against the worst, yet can still converse and ideally gain a member in good standing.
The concept was simple: they paid a tax when their contributions cost the community more than they were worth.
The moment they end that practice, no more tax!
This kind of thing works best when a significant body of members knows how to own their conversation. They know to laugh, or advise one to reconsider and know when to avoid pages of righteous indignation and or who is the bigger asshole.
Sidebar: all members of a conversation about who is the bigger asshole deserve that conversation. (Very strong norm to establish there)
Sorry, but my ramble does get back to your tweaks:
Rather than upvote/downvote on agreement, do so on value.
Any system that can collect value may also have resonant higher order effects and I will leave you with the idea of healthy resonance, that is appropriately damped as "the center" you seek.
Undamped resonance is an echo chamber.
No resonance is a support forum.
Here we see things resonate, but not as one thing, more like chords, somewhat harmonious, not discordant.
Simple up and down, coupled with norms can do that. And one secret here is the non obvious dampening.
High value resonant speech happens and is encouraged. Discordant things are not denied, just nudged away.
I personally never downvote. It is not needed. I like flag to get at speech with toxicity potential, but my own bar is high.
I also like vouch. Same reasons.
These hint at ways to communicate value and I very strongly suggest value is where the better systems exist, if they do exist apart from skilled humans who, unlike machines, can deal in meaning and come to know minds.
Speaking of meta though, I have to say, I still stand by my initial thought that an alternate rating mechanic is at least worth exploring, as the upvote/downvote feels like a system from an earlier era before anyone realized how large its social impact could be. I'd be interested to know what the ideal system that promotes a healthy convergence to the center (rather than one that increases polarization) would look like.
I can't deny the effects of great moderation/cultivation, that they are the most important part, but being a technologist I still want to see what happens when the variables are tweaked.