Search Ideas
983 ideas match your query.:
Who wants that hassle?
People who have submitted criticisms hope to get paid. They have an incentive to submit arbitrary counter-criticisms to others’ criticisms to increase their own share of the pie.
If they have submitted criticisms, they may get paid. So they have an incentive to submit arbitrary counter-criticisms to others’ criticisms.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all unproblematic criticisms equally.
That doesn’t address the possibility of others submitting arbitrary criticisms just before the deadline.
Could offer refunds.
What if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?
Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?
Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?
But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per criticisms means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among criticisms means the incentive is gradually reduced, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether the reduction is still worth contributing.
Rather than set a fixed amount for each unproblematic criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all criticisms equally.
That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.
But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.
The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.
For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.
Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.
There’s an encoding bug affecting title previews.
Benjamin suggests making it clearer that you can use Veritula by yourself.
I can take this opportunity to replace manual markdown with a proper text editor. Then there’s no need for autopaired brackets.
The editor will need to support:
- Automatic links to ideas like #123
- Links to @mentions like @dennis-hackethal*
- Safe link formatting
- Disabling of turbo links
- Namespaced footnotes
- Custom blockquote format
- Protection against XSS
- Retention of formatting when pasting
[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
I think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
Trial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.