Dennis Hackethal

‘Post’

‘Note’

‘Entry’

‘Space’

‘Subject’

‘Thread’

‘Topic’

‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.

While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.

#2877 doesn’t mean you should put entire articles in the about section. (That’s still what top-level ideas are for.) It means that, if you’re willing to use the about section for that, then by your own logic there’s no need for this new feature.

Maybe, see #2909.

If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change?

Maybe. It could depend on which term Veritula adopts.

What if a user wishes to express that they take issue with something written in the entry/topic body text? I suppose they would quote it in their top-level criticism.

Yes.

Maybe about sections should themselves be criticizable… In which case they’re just regular top-level ideas. So maybe I could just remove about sections for future discussions. I’ll mull it over.

This change is on purpose. The zoom feature was buggy. After zooming out far enough, the navbar and footer got cut off on the right. So I replaced it with proper scrolling.

Would you say zooming was indispensable or just nice to have?

#2810 applies to this idea as well.

The new subscription system takes care of this.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.

A recurring theme in the video is people thinking that reason is the domain of logical, explicit thought, whereas your emotions, gut, etc live in a different domain.

So to them, the question “Can you live your life 100% guided by reason?” means ‘Can you suppress your emotions, gut, etc your entire life?’

They’re right to answer ‘no’.
They’re wrong to think that’s what reason is about. See #2281, #2844.

The purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.

Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.

There are a few reasons people might send criticisms instead of revising an idea themselves:

1. You get a chance to disagree.
2. Submitting a criticism is easier.
3. A criticism is a written record explaining why a revision is necessary.

Because of the third reason, you may see people post a criticism and then immediately revise your idea to address it.

Maybe I’m wrong but I’m sensing a bit of frustration between the lines. Please note that Veritula pursues a higher standard of error correction than other platforms. Some criticisms may be unexpected; discussions could go in a direction you did not anticipate. You may receive criticisms that would be deemed nitpicky on other platforms, but they’re not meant to be. They may go beyond what’s strictly socially acceptable. I intend criticism to be a gift to you. For ‘small’ criticisms, it’s usually best to revise accordingly and not counter-criticize.

Your idea reads more like a question than a criticism. But since I’ve (hopefully) answered it, I’m marking this response a criticism to neutralize it.

Sorry, I was debugging something and temporarily disabled this feature. Should be back up.