My notes from the workshop

Themes from introductory conversation

Conducting conversation
Re-use
Semiotic continuity
Reputation
Context
Design space
Tools
Audience

Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?

Largely copied from Ping Yee's butcher paper notes:

Features of debate

• Good features: NPOV (neutral point of view) appears to work; separate artifact and conversation; user profiles
• Bad features:

Goals of debate: main ones according to Cliff, in literature

• persuasion
  • galvanization
  • outcomes?
• consensus
  • hard in CMC today
• articulation - brainstorming
• group self-awareness
• entertainment
• tactical distraction/diversion from other debates
• active listening

Outcome of debate may be:

• a decision
  • See My Tiny Life about the world of Lambda Moo
• indvidual attitude change / education /empathy
• conflict / violence
• indiv./coll. identity
• knowledge exchange
  • fact checking
• moderateness of views
• bridging versus bonding

Design desiderata

• foster/coerce focus
• facilitate encourage use of evidence

Possibly good/bad mechanisms

• Rollback (unposting)
• Repudiation/nonrepudiability

Mechanisms

• Separate artifact
• Profiles: ID vs. anonymity ... pseudonymity
• Clustering: comfort vs. balkanization
• Focus: tight...loose
• Reference: quoting...summarization
• Modifiability: editable...scribblable...unchanging