The trouble I have with "Ask to Join" is that it feels like going up to a group of people in conversation at a cocktail party and going OHAI :D!

I'm bad enough at that in real life and it's not any easier on the web.

Is "Ask to Join" yet another barrier to entry against introverts? Shouldn't it be easier for people with anxieties about social interaction to jump into online interactions? Or is "Ask to Join" simply a filter for people who might not benefit from this kind of thing anyway?

I think it's a barrier against introverts but I think there's a cost-benefit analysis to be done with join-to-ask vs open commenting. Open commenting (even with an identity, be it meatspace-connected or simply a persistent pseudonym) doesn't seem to keep people from posting horrible stuff. See: every newspaper comment section that uses Facebook for comments.

Ask-to-join is designed to discourage that, but it also discourages introverts. As something of an introvert myself, I think open comment cesspits do too, though.

Yeah, on balance, ask-to-join is going to probably produce a better signal to noise ratio than open commenting.

I guess ultimately the question comes down to how much one likes online discussion fora.

Well I can't see how the branch model can work if anyone can join in to any branch. A couple of thoughts:

The system really depends on the branch initiator to "prime the pump" and invite a few people they already know want to discuss a topic.

If you find the branch through some social network (like twitter) where the initiator has put out a call for participants, there's no need to be shy. But I can see your point if you just stumble on a branch on the site.

On the other hand, this is a public, social site. If someone starts a branch, I assume they are de facto *asking* people to walk up and say, OHAI!

Q: When you start a branch, can you disable "ask to join"?

I agree. If the level of discourse is more civil than open threads, I think introverted people will actually be more likely to ask and join in.

A: No, doesn't look like it. It seems like the Branch model is that all discussions are open to everyone, regardless. Like, if you wanted a private chat of some kind, you'd carry it out elsewhere. Facebook, for instance.

The Branch model of join to ask is less discouraging to me than open commenting. But I wouldn't ask to join a branch I didn't know anyone in.

I actually would (and have) asked to join branches in which I don't anyone. But you all know I'm someone who buts into conversations I overhear, so...

Unless you happen to know someone already on Branch, butting in on strangers is about the only way you can get on board—that's how I did it. But boy did I twitch a lot.

Then again, not everyone is as neurotic about human contact as I can be.

You may want to branch this...

How about the flipped scenario? Is someone you didn't know "asks to join" a branch you're hosting, would you let them in?

I waited until someone I knew had an interesting branch and asked to join it.

(ugh. can't edit my typos.)

I'd let in someone I didn't know, sure, as long as there were no egregious warning signs. (Someone who twitters angry racist screeds and uses an Uzi as their user icon, for example, would not get a pass.)

Yeah, I'd be the same as Karin: short of warning signs that suggest not to, I'd let someone I didn't know into a branch.

The good thing is, if you let them in and they turn out to be an asshat, you don't have to let them into subsequent branches.

Hmm. I can't tell if there's a means for booting an asshat from a branch.

If you hover over the names at the top, you may see a little x to delete them. But I suspect that only applies to unaccepted invites...

Yeah, that appears to be the case. Hovering over the names of active participants doesn't do anything.

Hi! I can't branch (no official invite), but to answer the question(s), I'm not likely to get involved in discussions with strangers. I'd only be likely to ask to join if I knew the majority of participants. And I'd probably limit conversations to people I'm familiar with. Even then, I think that the idea that having selective participation to limit asshattery only goes so far. It may do so in smaller groups like this one, but as groups get larger and less connected, people feel more anonymous and are more likely to be less civil. Are there limitations to how big a branch can be?

Of course, this is coming from the girl that rarely participates in any online forums, so take it as you will...

I've seen some pretty big branches, but I'm not sure what the limits are on participants. I definitely would be wary of diving into any big ones where I didn't know some significant number of the participants. And I think you're right about the danger of metastatizing groups. (Especially if the groups were clustered around a contentious interest of some kind.)

Most topics I wouldn't join unless I knew people. However, there's a branch on best cover songs I may have to ask to join because I really want to keep up with it. That's an exception, but the topic is low-stakes for contention.