Search Ideas

Bug: tooltips sometimes don’t disappear. They should disappear when the user stops hovering over the element that triggered the tooltip.

In a way, reactions might have epistemological relevance.

If an idea has pending criticisms, it can still have parts worth saving in a revision. Reactions based on paragraphs (#2458) could point out those parts.

The red “Criticized” label is far more prominent than reactions would be.

Done as of 7061786.

Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.

Feature idea: selecting some text, then hitting ‘Comment’, automatically pastes a quote of the selected text into the textarea, Telegram style, with the proper Markdown formatting.

Feature idea: private discussions only the creator and invited people can see.

Superseded by #2524.

I’m not sure yet, but I’m playing with the idea that the criticism can’t have any pending counter-criticisms by some deadline. Each counter-criticism could reset the deadline to give everyone ample time to respond.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands, but maybe it belongs somewhere higher up the chain.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Edit: after reviewing the thread, I see that you were more focused on the bad actors problem while I was more focused on giving people fair time to respond. I believe what I am saying still stands.

Yes, but bad actors are a separate problem to solve (as you have alluded to in #2513, where you mention “good citizens”).

The problem we are addressing here is giving people a fair time window to respond to criticisms after they are published.

Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying, wouldn’t they?

Sorry but I don’t see how that solves the bad-actor problem. Bad actors would still be able to draw out the discussion to avoid paying.

Idea: when you create a bounty, you set the amount you’re willing to pay per criticism and a ceiling for the total you’re willing to spend (no. of crits * amount per crit).

Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. In addition, there’s a button to report abuse. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, the bounty stops early and your card is charged the full authorization.

If you submit a criticism, you won’t want to wait indefinitely to get paid just because others are keeping the discussion going in a different branch.

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?

… I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479…

Editing ideas should be fixed now. (You won’t need to edit this one, though, since I’ve done the requisite housekeeping.)

That is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.

Then a bounty can go on indefinitely.

I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.

Superseded by #2501.

Since I am getting an error when I try to edit #2479, I will make a new criticism. I think #2479 is unclear.

I would have it that each criticism and counter-criticism resets the countdown on the bounty deadline. This means everyone involved is given fair time to respond at each turn.

A small downside is that a bounty can go on indefinitely, but that is simply an extension of the fact that solutions to problems don’t come reliably.

The counter-criticism moves the deadline forward again the same fixed amount.

I suppose that would make it a bit harder for bad actors because they’d need to monitor multiple deadlines, but they could still submit arbitrary counter-criticisms just in time to avoid paying. Or is there something I’m missing?