[davidschaengold]

Sock-puppet bots are definitely a risk for us, as ordinary bots are for other sites. Our core mechanism is complemented by, and does not replace, the standard anti-spam, anti-bot techniques.

Additionally, other users on Radiopaper will understand the mechanism. So, if they see a controversial post with 100% fawning replies, they're going to understand what's happening, and discount the credibility of those replies accordingly.

[jonahx]

An interesting feature would be to allow people to "disagree but show" for comments they disagreed with but considered at least thoughtful/civil/in good faith, and then combine that with user stats:

When other comment on my posts:

    - % rejected
    - % disagreed but shown
    - % accepted

When I comment:

    - % rejected
    - % disagreed but shown
    - % accepted

This would incentivize openness and good faith conversation, and make abusers on either front (trolling or over-policing) instantly visible.

[davidschaengold]

An earlier iteration of the site actually had a set of reactions that included a 'disagree' option, with something like what you're proposing in mind. We ended up removing reactions from the product temporarily for the sake of simplicity, but hope to add them back in shortly.

The full set was -Agree -Disagree -Interesting -Beautiful.

We still use them internally. You can see what they look like here: https://twitter.com/DavidSchaengold/status/15202075451048468...

[dane-pgp]

It would be nice if a moderation process allowed people to distinguish between comments which are "correct, but expressed poorly" and those which are deemed "incorrect, but expressed politely".

The former comments would present an opportunity for someone to try to reword them (and possibly steelman them), while the latter would be a signal to the commenter that people disagreed but appreciated their good faith effort to engage constructively.

[alimov]

Thanks for taking the time to explain