Activity Feed
#4499·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoI first want to see some more people posting to their profiles so there’ll be enough ideas to show in that tab.
There are more profile posts now, and f27080b9 makes it a tab instead of its own page, so fewer posts aren’t as big a deal anyway.
#3166·Benjamin Davies, 11 months ago@dennis-hackethal* see the revision chain on #3164. Revision 5 improved the content but I accidentally removed valuable comments. Revision 6 (a revision of revision 4) brought back the comments but I failed to include the content improvement in revision 5. I then made revision 7 to have both the comments and the improved content.
Maybe it should be possible to amend which comments apply to an idea without needing to make a whole new revision. This could behave weirdly in some edge cases, but it’s food for thought. If you think the way it currently works is going to be best, that seems fine to me.
As of 212b357f, revising goes in steps, and a reply only stays behind if you mark it, with a button that says what that means (“Answered by this revision” or “No longer applies”). That should prevent what happened with #3164.
Changing which replies apply without a new revision would rewrite a version’s history, which the timeline relies on. If replies still get lost, I’d rather let a new revision bring back the ones an earlier version left out.
Archiving #3166 for now. If it happens again, leave a comment and I’ll take a look.
#2163·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 year agoRevisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.
Done as of 90bfadf1. The revision process is now divided over four guided steps with explanations.
#4729·Moritz Wallawitsch, 7 months agoA discussion needs to be more skimmable via one or both of these:
1. hide long posts behind "read more" button
2. collapse critique chains/threads behind a "reply more" button
Both done, as of 3945f28a and 82b641de. Long ideas now show cut short, with a Read more button that expands them in place. Discussions open with settled branches collapsed: the replies to comments and to addressed criticisms sit behind a plus on their gutter line. Pending criticisms, which decide whether an idea can be adopted, stay open. In most browsers, Cmd+F still finds text in collapsed branches and opens them.
#6031·Michael Briffa, 2 days agoEmpty criticism, issue not addressed. The checkbox provides no value and delays badges, limiting the amount one can interact with the site.
Let’s keep this discussion on topic. I’ll follow up with you privately.
Empty criticism, issue not addressed. The checkbox provides no value and delays badges, limiting the amount one can interact with the site.
#4489·Benjamin Davies, 8 months agoSuggestion: Allow reacts to be used in the activity feed.
That way I can quickly add colour to whatever has been happening recently on the site.
Done as of 6d4f4a70. You can now also reply to ideas directly from the activity feed.
#4513·Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoIdea: ability to lock an idea to prevent edits. If you submit the first version, you get to lock the idea. Useful especially on your own profile that you might use as more of a blog and don’t necessarily want others changing your ideas.
Locking isn’t needed. Ideas are already immutable: other people can only add versions. The real problem was which version your profile shows. As of e3507e6f, the wall shows each post as its author last revised it, so other people’s revisions no longer speak for you there, and nobody has to be stopped from improving your ideas.
This criticism applies to #4520 as well.
#5143·Tyler Mills, 3 months agoMy profile shows my revision to #5126 under Wall and under Activity, but not the post itself under the Wall. The revision is a jumble of red and green highlighted text (in this case, because the revision was significant), hard to read. Wall should only show latest versions of posts, not edits to them. Edits should go under Activity. And/or have the previous post versions viewable with the little arrows, as usual (and as done in the idea-focused view, after you click on the idea itself). Always show latest versions of ideas on the Wall so it's clear and easy to read.
Fixed as of 1a588356. Check your profile:
#5729·Dennis HackethalOP, 22 days agoOffer easy way to link to latest version of an idea. The ability already exists – an idea link +
/latestwill always go to the latest version – but isn’t directly exposed in the form of a link or button yet.
Done as of a7a529b5.
Add clause preventing excessive arguing
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.
To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.
To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once. Excessive arguing over a moderation decision, asking for exceptions or special treatment, complaining about the rules, and similar behavior, are all bannable offenses. What counts as similar, excessive, and asking for special treatment is up to moderators. It’s usually best to accept a moderation decision and move on.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.
#6023·Michael Briffa, 3 days agoI think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
Just check the checkbox
#6018·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days ago·AI-assistedI haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.
I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.
I think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
#4614·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 months agoNeed rate limiting for new users to prevent excessive posting.
Done as of a while ago (c1f33a63).