HolyWars - 100,000 Stitched Pants
On the study of the idea of social service for mass discussions of conflict situations. Based on the thoughts and suggestions of the idea of a social project. The working title "Disassembly" with interesting, but vague outlines. Now clearer and with a picture. :)
In order not to load all the details I bring in the beginning an entertaining part. Then there are theoretical arguments, decide whether to read them or not. However, I note that the article was written primarily because of them. Well, among other things, there is a little about Karma and Habrasil, if anyone is interested. :)
Part 1, entertaining
')
Winnie the Pooh vs Bees
Layout of the solution of the social service page, focused on mass discussions of conflict situations.
It has no functionality, as it should be illustrated. The design is equally conditional - only for understanding the purpose of the elements.
Brief explanation of the content
In the center - the topic . You can vote for it. Under it is a cloud of arguments - opinions in one line, which won the greatest support in
discussions .
Above, facts are information that is accepted by the community as reliable.
Below is links - all other information recognized by participants worthy of attention, but not relevant to the facts.
At the very bottom of the discussion topics.
Part 2, theoretical
Prerequisites. How long!
Do you often have discussions with the number of posts exceeding one hundred, so that the volume of the text is comparable to the story?
Suppose the topic interests you. How many posts do you need to read-browse-scroll through to say: “I am aware of the topic”? And how much time should be spent to really be aware of? Suddenly it said something really useful to you? ..
If the interest at first is, it soon goes out. After all, trying to isolate valuable information from such a hodgepodge is simply inappropriate. There are ways easier.
As a result, only those who write them read megatopics . The rest, if they look, it is no farther than the first and last pages.
The question arises, if nobody reads them, why do megatopics multiply, and the further, the more?
There is a theory that people participate in mass discussions: a) not yet mentally formed, b) already mentally disbanded. Read: teenagers, idiots and psychos at various stages. Plus, the topic was made by fans, co-players (who are directly concerned) and moderators (I sympathize).
The theory of “unhealthy activity” in the literal form is certainly not true. After all, if you follow this logic, then I am normal only if I discuss topics that concern from 10 to 100 people. And after the enno mark interested, it turns out, I become an idiot? ..
However, there is no smoke without fire. One can completely agree with the fact that, when the topic reaches a certain popularity, it becomes more convenient for a fool and an idiot to live in it than for an adequate reasoned person.
Why?
Prerequisites. Visible to the root
For some reason, personalities that have become known leave the diaries or turn off comments?
And not so difficult. First, stupidity is much easier to say than something clever. Moreover, to refute the stupidity is even more expensive. Recall: "Arguing with an idiot himself turns into an idiot."
Within a small audience, the adequacy of the statements of the participants can somehow be controlled. In droves - no.
But the ranks of Internet users are growing at a pace ... (however, most of the participants probably know better than me - not for me to tell you :)).
In a word, on the one hand, there is a growing audience of discussions, and on the other, discussion mechanisms designed for a very modest number of participants.
Well, it's time to make services adapted for mass discussions.
Actually, the forefront of the web industry has already dealt with the problem. What do the concepts of “Web 2.0” and “social orientation” mean if not “Web for the masses”?
(By the way, there is the term "mass media", and there is still no "massweb." Strange. Probably, it would be time too ...)
So, with the news projects, as I can see, already accustomed (some already just habra-accustomed :)).
And what about our discussions? Of course, certain steps are visible: the design of the same discussions on news services. But no more than that.
Let's see how we can organize a mass discussion service. Of the many implementations, we choose the option to discuss conflict situations. After all, it is here that the peak of megatopics is observed. This is where any regular forum tends to become a garbage dump.
We will give the service the speaking name HolyWars (based on the sentences Jericho and entze ).
HolyWars. Formulation of the problem
1) Functioning in terms of participation of up to several tens (hundreds) of thousands of users in one discussion.
2) Minimization of repeated and unreasonable statements.
We will achieve this by already known methods:
- rating,
- filtration,
- using tags,
- putting important information in a prominent place.
As you can see, nothing over-original.
Naturally, the article does not describe the project "from and to". Let's narrow the area of consideration to the main functional unit of the service - a discussion page of a certain specific topic.
This page requires easy access:
- to the basic information on the topic (facts, chronicles of events, characteristics of the parties involved);
- to the current state of discussion (to the main counter topics for / against, to the key utterances that collected the most support, as well as to the utterances of the key participants - eyewitnesses, authorities, famous personalities);
- to the means of expressing one’s own opinion (approval / disapproval of existing judgments and positions, expressing one’s own judgments, recommending existing ones and adding one’s own information on the topic).
HolyWars. Obvious moments
What conclusions can be made only after reading the tasks and methods?
1) We consider the discussion topic as a summary page, on which, besides references to
Topics for discussion will be basic information on the topic ( facts , links ),
the main issue with vote counters, as well as a tag tag cloud (see p. 4).
(In order not to confuse the topic of discussion with the topics of discussion , I will continue to simply mention them simply as a topic and topics.)
2) About the topics. The number is not limited. Sorted by chronology of answers or popularity (the ratio of the total number of votes for the posts of the topic to the number of these posts).
The importance of posts in the topics and information materials on the main page is provided by the assessment of participants. The principle of visualization is the same everywhere: the first is the most popular.
3) The most active application of filtering in the topics!
By name and rating of participants (white and black lists), by rating of posts (for example dirty.ru), by tags.
In the topic with the number of posts over 100, it is quite appropriate to display posts not only in chronological order, but also in the form of a top rated (posts). To ensure connectivity, add to each main post a few preceding ones in the collapsed state (the number is at the user's choice). It is not clear - we deploy and read.
4) The use of arguments - a way to visualize popular opinions in the form of a tag cloud.
For example: a user writes in the topic “The priest had a dog” post, condemning the deceased for stealing meat, and the tag indicates “Retribution for theft”. A tag cloud, depending on the popularity of posts containing them, is posted directly under the topic under discussion (Idea Uran235 , Thank you!). Why is better than “arguments”, rather than “opinions” or “judgments”, substantiated below.
5) While the cloud of arguments will visually represent popular opinions in the topics, the main vote on the topic should be carried out according to the scheme of votes for the answers to
The main issue of the topic.
Voting for the posts of topics, and, accordingly, the arguments do not affect the vote on the main issue of the topic. But the answer taken by the participants on the main question should influence the type and position of the argument tag in the cloud.
For example: use the visualization of the color and position of the tag: for one side - red and on the left, for the other - blue and on the right, neutrals - green and in the center. Convert the number of votes cast for the argument as RGB components - we get the color of the tag. So in the same way we calculate his position (right-left). Font size is popular. The presence of representatives of all parties among the voters - in bold and / or underlined. We also have a typeface in stock - if necessary, you can use it to reflect other possible nuances.
On the Vini-illustrations, the tags are depicted in this way. In addition, it turned out that it is necessary to introduce auto-correction of brightness (max. Percentage of votes - 255 units of color), since for a normal ratio (100% of votes - 255 units), most tags it was dark, while others were practically unreadable — black on black.
6) For facts - information accepted by participants as authentic - to make a vote for authenticity, but limit the ability to vote to a high threshold for the participant’s rating. To add facts to the category of confirmed, enter a group of moderators.
For example, to obtain confirmed status, a fact must dial the “passing” number of their votes and not dial the penalty number of “minuses”. Otherwise, it becomes a link.
The names of those who voted for / against the credibility of the fact should be available to all participants.
7) Links - all other information recognized by participants worthy of attention, but not relevant to
facts can be added and evaluated by all participants. It is logical to divide into categories: news, opinions, discussions, media materials.
Reasoning Motivation
The main rule of existence of any social network is the presence of self-regulation. The mechanism of self-regulation is simple and effective:
the more useful you (your resources) are to the network, the more you will receive its unique benefits .
As a result, the sought-after ones get more freedom and influence, and unnecessary ones are eliminated or do not interfere. In this case, everyone is happy, and everything happens as if by itself.
The task of social service is to materialize this mechanism by:
a) convenient provision of unique wealth-opportunities
(for example: read the latest and interesting news, chat with like-minded people, get popular)
b) convenient provision of an interface for receiving resources from the user
(for example: vote for publications, post your own)
c) the introduction of the exchange rate "good - user resources" and the accounting of turnover (ie, rules and rating).
What kind of motivation will we have on HolyWars? Let's analyze the existing social services on this subject.
Blogs: make friends, read them, write, discuss, gain popularity and make new friends.
Total: communicate with friends and like-minded people.
News: read the news, vote for the best, post links to new, comment.
Total: easy and quick access to the most interesting news.
Social services, social connections: find the people you need and become more accessible for those who are potentially interested in you or your capabilities.
Total: use the connection to the maximum, use the support of colleagues.
As you can see, it all comes down to the basic “be better / more useful / active, and you will be better / more useful / more convenient ...” Thus, the system of encouraging positive attitude and usefulness of members is supported.
But our case is specific in that in each discussion we have at least 2 camps of adherents who are not very friendly towards each other. Is it possible in such conditions to promote utility and positivity? Yes, if you rely on factors recognized by all participants as unconditional values. It remains to find them.
We have already indirectly determined the first value at the stage of setting the task - this is an informative discussion, which can be ensured, on the one hand, by bringing valuable information into one place, and on the other, by minimizing idle talk and unfounded opinions.
If the first organizers of the service take over, the second depends on the participants. Consequently, we need to introduce into the system of project rules an appropriate concept — let's call it talkative — and then cultivate its minimization.
And there is another value recognized by all participants of this project. In order to clarify the logic of its identification and at the same time not go into philosophical and psychological reasoning, I will simply cite some chain of reasoning (and experts, if necessary, can interpret all this from accepted scientific / unscientific positions).
To begin with, the basic motivation of the participant “be more useful / more useful for the society ...” in our case is transformed into a desire to support certain norms of justice in this society.
... For the sake of themselves or for the sake of others, establishing and refuting laws, people, in any case, live with a certain understanding of the correctness of relationships ... Only an understanding is sometimes so different ...
What is conflict? This is, in fact, communication between 2 parties in order to provide the opponent with information about his own understanding of the views, values and logic of relations. In the course of the debate, the proposed value systems are compared and evaluated ... as a result, they are introduced into the minds of opponents with this or that success.
At the same time, the range of methods used varies widely, starting with a position of open, honest discussion (with the goal of achieving maximum mutual understanding) and ending with complete “misinformation” and deception (with the sole purpose of confusing the enemy as much as possible, weakening his position).
The “deceptive” aspect refers to the destructive, it is impossible to organize a stable self-regulating system on it. This is not our way.
On the other hand, declining the discussion in the direction of openness and honesty, we have the common interest of the parties, which we were looking for.
In other words, we must cultivate the objectivity of the participants (let's call the corresponding characteristic of the participant a little differently - authority, just so as not to be confused in terms). It is on this factor that the general motivation is based: to introduce one's own understanding of justice into society, and also to understand someone else's (at least in order to find inconsistencies in it and further convince the opponent :)).
To support discussions in the spirit of objectivity, it is desirable to use the appropriate terms. It is for this reason that essentially the opinions of the tags are proposed to be called arguments. By this we point out that it is precisely the reasoned opinions that have value here.
HolyWars. User ratings
So, our factors of motivation: talkativeness and authority . Each of them is entered into the system of rules as an individual member indicator.
In general, as in the system of motives - there should be as many ratings.
By the way, let us think, what do the Karma and Habrasila known to us mean from these positions? It is obvious that Karma expresses an indicator of positivity, and Habrasil - creativity. Concepts are repeatedly mentioned in the habra-wiki.
Well, having substantiated the main factors, it remains to form the rules for the circulation of local resources and establish their exchange rate for the benefits in our service of conflicting discussions.
HolyWars. Formulate the rules
The number of parties to the conflict?
There are always two of them! Any conflict involving the parties more than 2 can be divided into simple, 2 participants each. And if not, then this is already called a contest and is solved by other methods, but we are not talking about that here.
The title of the topic and its main question
Should not allow disputes about the correctness of the wording.
There is nothing to argue about when the main question will contain nothing but the attitude of the participants to the parties to the conflict, and the name of the topic will not contain anything to describe the nature of the conflict.
Thus, we make out the name as a neutral subtitle in one sentence.
For example: "The priest had a dog, he killed her."
The main question in the "vs" style: "Pop vs Dog."
Right or left?
To exclude possible disputes about the visual choice of the side on the page, we establish a rule: the active side of the conflict, according to the logic of the proposal, is always on the left, the passive on the right.
For example: "Wolf vs Little Red Riding Hood", "Hunters vs Wolf".
Variants of answers, groups of participants
According to the "logic of justice":
a) rights party A;
b) B;
c) there is no right (I did not decide on the answer or I do not consider it possible to call one of the parties right)
Accordingly, 3 groups of participants: right, left and neutrals.
In the voting for the posts of topics and arguments, it is interesting to know the distribution of votes of each group, it makes no sense to mix. Therefore, we count separately.
The implementation of the main vote threads
Clicked plus left - left, plus right - right. If you didn’t press one or press one first and then the other - neutral. The last option for those who vote for one side, eventually changed their minds. This is an opportunity to at least partially compensate for the fallacy. However, to combat fraud and to prevent ill-considered voting, we will not allow to completely change the results of our voting.
The fourth group of participants: completely dissent
Probably, for any topic there will be project participants who for some reason do not approve its creation or creation in this particular form. For them, we will provide for the topic “-”, in other words, “to bury the topic. It is logical that after this response, the user becomes unavailable to be active in the topic. Just look. And on the contrary, somehow once having shown activity (having written a post, having voted for something) the participant loses an opportunity to "bury" it.
: „ – “» , ".
«» , /. .
, , dirty.ru – «».
/ ( ). , , . , , .
, .
, / . , ? It does not matter.
.
, , , – , , «» . – . , …
, , , , . .
, : , , , , .
, , – . , , , – «» . , . :)
, , «» – « ».
1) 2) .
1 , , , . , , , , , . «» . . 3 . – !
, «» . « » ( «»), / – : , , .
.
«» , , ( ): 3-4 , 1-2 . , – , .
– . , . .
, -.
. (--) .
, , .
, -, .
, . – . , , , .
. , . , .
.
HolyWars. Extras
. ?
, — — . , , , .
1) , ( ) ( )? , ? ?
2) , , , . , , , ?
3) .
?
4) «»… ?
5) , 500 «» ( ), … ?
6) , -, . , . ?
. - , ? .
« ...»: ,
. , ,
, . « ».
, , … ,
- , . .
, . – . - , . , - .
, . , . , , , , . , .
.
. . . , , .
– . . .
, , , , . , , . :)
, . / .
But! . , , .
1) , . , – . , , . … :)
2) «» , . – ( , ). !
RPG-. , - . , – .
. «» «».
, ? ! , !
, : , , – « ». « », , , .
! – .
-. . .
:
- , -, , .
( ) .
.
PS , . :
:
,
.
. :)
In order not to load all the details I bring in the beginning an entertaining part. Then there are theoretical arguments, decide whether to read them or not. However, I note that the article was written primarily because of them. Well, among other things, there is a little about Karma and Habrasil, if anyone is interested. :)
Part 1, entertaining
')
Winnie the Pooh vs Bees
Layout of the solution of the social service page, focused on mass discussions of conflict situations.
It has no functionality, as it should be illustrated. The design is equally conditional - only for understanding the purpose of the elements.
Brief explanation of the content
In the center - the topic . You can vote for it. Under it is a cloud of arguments - opinions in one line, which won the greatest support in
discussions .
Above, facts are information that is accepted by the community as reliable.
Below is links - all other information recognized by participants worthy of attention, but not relevant to the facts.
At the very bottom of the discussion topics.
Part 2, theoretical
Prerequisites. How long!
Do you often have discussions with the number of posts exceeding one hundred, so that the volume of the text is comparable to the story?
Suppose the topic interests you. How many posts do you need to read-browse-scroll through to say: “I am aware of the topic”? And how much time should be spent to really be aware of? Suddenly it said something really useful to you? ..
If the interest at first is, it soon goes out. After all, trying to isolate valuable information from such a hodgepodge is simply inappropriate. There are ways easier.
As a result, only those who write them read megatopics . The rest, if they look, it is no farther than the first and last pages.
The question arises, if nobody reads them, why do megatopics multiply, and the further, the more?
There is a theory that people participate in mass discussions: a) not yet mentally formed, b) already mentally disbanded. Read: teenagers, idiots and psychos at various stages. Plus, the topic was made by fans, co-players (who are directly concerned) and moderators (I sympathize).
The theory of “unhealthy activity” in the literal form is certainly not true. After all, if you follow this logic, then I am normal only if I discuss topics that concern from 10 to 100 people. And after the enno mark interested, it turns out, I become an idiot? ..
However, there is no smoke without fire. One can completely agree with the fact that, when the topic reaches a certain popularity, it becomes more convenient for a fool and an idiot to live in it than for an adequate reasoned person.
Why?
Prerequisites. Visible to the root
For some reason, personalities that have become known leave the diaries or turn off comments?
And not so difficult. First, stupidity is much easier to say than something clever. Moreover, to refute the stupidity is even more expensive. Recall: "Arguing with an idiot himself turns into an idiot."
Within a small audience, the adequacy of the statements of the participants can somehow be controlled. In droves - no.
But the ranks of Internet users are growing at a pace ... (however, most of the participants probably know better than me - not for me to tell you :)).
In a word, on the one hand, there is a growing audience of discussions, and on the other, discussion mechanisms designed for a very modest number of participants.
Well, it's time to make services adapted for mass discussions.
Actually, the forefront of the web industry has already dealt with the problem. What do the concepts of “Web 2.0” and “social orientation” mean if not “Web for the masses”?
(By the way, there is the term "mass media", and there is still no "massweb." Strange. Probably, it would be time too ...)
So, with the news projects, as I can see, already accustomed (some already just habra-accustomed :)).
And what about our discussions? Of course, certain steps are visible: the design of the same discussions on news services. But no more than that.
Let's see how we can organize a mass discussion service. Of the many implementations, we choose the option to discuss conflict situations. After all, it is here that the peak of megatopics is observed. This is where any regular forum tends to become a garbage dump.
We will give the service the speaking name HolyWars (based on the sentences Jericho and entze ).
HolyWars. Formulation of the problem
1) Functioning in terms of participation of up to several tens (hundreds) of thousands of users in one discussion.
2) Minimization of repeated and unreasonable statements.
We will achieve this by already known methods:
- rating,
- filtration,
- using tags,
- putting important information in a prominent place.
As you can see, nothing over-original.
Naturally, the article does not describe the project "from and to". Let's narrow the area of consideration to the main functional unit of the service - a discussion page of a certain specific topic.
This page requires easy access:
- to the basic information on the topic (facts, chronicles of events, characteristics of the parties involved);
- to the current state of discussion (to the main counter topics for / against, to the key utterances that collected the most support, as well as to the utterances of the key participants - eyewitnesses, authorities, famous personalities);
- to the means of expressing one’s own opinion (approval / disapproval of existing judgments and positions, expressing one’s own judgments, recommending existing ones and adding one’s own information on the topic).
HolyWars. Obvious moments
What conclusions can be made only after reading the tasks and methods?
1) We consider the discussion topic as a summary page, on which, besides references to
Topics for discussion will be basic information on the topic ( facts , links ),
the main issue with vote counters, as well as a tag tag cloud (see p. 4).
(In order not to confuse the topic of discussion with the topics of discussion , I will continue to simply mention them simply as a topic and topics.)
2) About the topics. The number is not limited. Sorted by chronology of answers or popularity (the ratio of the total number of votes for the posts of the topic to the number of these posts).
The importance of posts in the topics and information materials on the main page is provided by the assessment of participants. The principle of visualization is the same everywhere: the first is the most popular.
3) The most active application of filtering in the topics!
By name and rating of participants (white and black lists), by rating of posts (for example dirty.ru), by tags.
In the topic with the number of posts over 100, it is quite appropriate to display posts not only in chronological order, but also in the form of a top rated (posts). To ensure connectivity, add to each main post a few preceding ones in the collapsed state (the number is at the user's choice). It is not clear - we deploy and read.
4) The use of arguments - a way to visualize popular opinions in the form of a tag cloud.
For example: a user writes in the topic “The priest had a dog” post, condemning the deceased for stealing meat, and the tag indicates “Retribution for theft”. A tag cloud, depending on the popularity of posts containing them, is posted directly under the topic under discussion (Idea Uran235 , Thank you!). Why is better than “arguments”, rather than “opinions” or “judgments”, substantiated below.
5) While the cloud of arguments will visually represent popular opinions in the topics, the main vote on the topic should be carried out according to the scheme of votes for the answers to
The main issue of the topic.
Voting for the posts of topics, and, accordingly, the arguments do not affect the vote on the main issue of the topic. But the answer taken by the participants on the main question should influence the type and position of the argument tag in the cloud.
For example: use the visualization of the color and position of the tag: for one side - red and on the left, for the other - blue and on the right, neutrals - green and in the center. Convert the number of votes cast for the argument as RGB components - we get the color of the tag. So in the same way we calculate his position (right-left). Font size is popular. The presence of representatives of all parties among the voters - in bold and / or underlined. We also have a typeface in stock - if necessary, you can use it to reflect other possible nuances.
On the Vini-illustrations, the tags are depicted in this way. In addition, it turned out that it is necessary to introduce auto-correction of brightness (max. Percentage of votes - 255 units of color), since for a normal ratio (100% of votes - 255 units), most tags it was dark, while others were practically unreadable — black on black.
6) For facts - information accepted by participants as authentic - to make a vote for authenticity, but limit the ability to vote to a high threshold for the participant’s rating. To add facts to the category of confirmed, enter a group of moderators.
For example, to obtain confirmed status, a fact must dial the “passing” number of their votes and not dial the penalty number of “minuses”. Otherwise, it becomes a link.
The names of those who voted for / against the credibility of the fact should be available to all participants.
7) Links - all other information recognized by participants worthy of attention, but not relevant to
facts can be added and evaluated by all participants. It is logical to divide into categories: news, opinions, discussions, media materials.
Reasoning Motivation
The main rule of existence of any social network is the presence of self-regulation. The mechanism of self-regulation is simple and effective:
the more useful you (your resources) are to the network, the more you will receive its unique benefits .
As a result, the sought-after ones get more freedom and influence, and unnecessary ones are eliminated or do not interfere. In this case, everyone is happy, and everything happens as if by itself.
The task of social service is to materialize this mechanism by:
a) convenient provision of unique wealth-opportunities
(for example: read the latest and interesting news, chat with like-minded people, get popular)
b) convenient provision of an interface for receiving resources from the user
(for example: vote for publications, post your own)
c) the introduction of the exchange rate "good - user resources" and the accounting of turnover (ie, rules and rating).
What kind of motivation will we have on HolyWars? Let's analyze the existing social services on this subject.
Blogs: make friends, read them, write, discuss, gain popularity and make new friends.
Total: communicate with friends and like-minded people.
News: read the news, vote for the best, post links to new, comment.
Total: easy and quick access to the most interesting news.
Social services, social connections: find the people you need and become more accessible for those who are potentially interested in you or your capabilities.
Total: use the connection to the maximum, use the support of colleagues.
As you can see, it all comes down to the basic “be better / more useful / active, and you will be better / more useful / more convenient ...” Thus, the system of encouraging positive attitude and usefulness of members is supported.
But our case is specific in that in each discussion we have at least 2 camps of adherents who are not very friendly towards each other. Is it possible in such conditions to promote utility and positivity? Yes, if you rely on factors recognized by all participants as unconditional values. It remains to find them.
We have already indirectly determined the first value at the stage of setting the task - this is an informative discussion, which can be ensured, on the one hand, by bringing valuable information into one place, and on the other, by minimizing idle talk and unfounded opinions.
If the first organizers of the service take over, the second depends on the participants. Consequently, we need to introduce into the system of project rules an appropriate concept — let's call it talkative — and then cultivate its minimization.
And there is another value recognized by all participants of this project. In order to clarify the logic of its identification and at the same time not go into philosophical and psychological reasoning, I will simply cite some chain of reasoning (and experts, if necessary, can interpret all this from accepted scientific / unscientific positions).
To begin with, the basic motivation of the participant “be more useful / more useful for the society ...” in our case is transformed into a desire to support certain norms of justice in this society.
... For the sake of themselves or for the sake of others, establishing and refuting laws, people, in any case, live with a certain understanding of the correctness of relationships ... Only an understanding is sometimes so different ...
What is conflict? This is, in fact, communication between 2 parties in order to provide the opponent with information about his own understanding of the views, values and logic of relations. In the course of the debate, the proposed value systems are compared and evaluated ... as a result, they are introduced into the minds of opponents with this or that success.
At the same time, the range of methods used varies widely, starting with a position of open, honest discussion (with the goal of achieving maximum mutual understanding) and ending with complete “misinformation” and deception (with the sole purpose of confusing the enemy as much as possible, weakening his position).
The “deceptive” aspect refers to the destructive, it is impossible to organize a stable self-regulating system on it. This is not our way.
On the other hand, declining the discussion in the direction of openness and honesty, we have the common interest of the parties, which we were looking for.
In other words, we must cultivate the objectivity of the participants (let's call the corresponding characteristic of the participant a little differently - authority, just so as not to be confused in terms). It is on this factor that the general motivation is based: to introduce one's own understanding of justice into society, and also to understand someone else's (at least in order to find inconsistencies in it and further convince the opponent :)).
To support discussions in the spirit of objectivity, it is desirable to use the appropriate terms. It is for this reason that essentially the opinions of the tags are proposed to be called arguments. By this we point out that it is precisely the reasoned opinions that have value here.
HolyWars. User ratings
So, our factors of motivation: talkativeness and authority . Each of them is entered into the system of rules as an individual member indicator.
In general, as in the system of motives - there should be as many ratings.
By the way, let us think, what do the Karma and Habrasila known to us mean from these positions? It is obvious that Karma expresses an indicator of positivity, and Habrasil - creativity. Concepts are repeatedly mentioned in the habra-wiki.
Well, having substantiated the main factors, it remains to form the rules for the circulation of local resources and establish their exchange rate for the benefits in our service of conflicting discussions.
HolyWars. Formulate the rules
The number of parties to the conflict?
There are always two of them! Any conflict involving the parties more than 2 can be divided into simple, 2 participants each. And if not, then this is already called a contest and is solved by other methods, but we are not talking about that here.
The title of the topic and its main question
Should not allow disputes about the correctness of the wording.
There is nothing to argue about when the main question will contain nothing but the attitude of the participants to the parties to the conflict, and the name of the topic will not contain anything to describe the nature of the conflict.
Thus, we make out the name as a neutral subtitle in one sentence.
For example: "The priest had a dog, he killed her."
The main question in the "vs" style: "Pop vs Dog."
Right or left?
To exclude possible disputes about the visual choice of the side on the page, we establish a rule: the active side of the conflict, according to the logic of the proposal, is always on the left, the passive on the right.
For example: "Wolf vs Little Red Riding Hood", "Hunters vs Wolf".
Variants of answers, groups of participants
According to the "logic of justice":
a) rights party A;
b) B;
c) there is no right (I did not decide on the answer or I do not consider it possible to call one of the parties right)
Accordingly, 3 groups of participants: right, left and neutrals.
In the voting for the posts of topics and arguments, it is interesting to know the distribution of votes of each group, it makes no sense to mix. Therefore, we count separately.
The implementation of the main vote threads
Clicked plus left - left, plus right - right. If you didn’t press one or press one first and then the other - neutral. The last option for those who vote for one side, eventually changed their minds. This is an opportunity to at least partially compensate for the fallacy. However, to combat fraud and to prevent ill-considered voting, we will not allow to completely change the results of our voting.
The fourth group of participants: completely dissent
Probably, for any topic there will be project participants who for some reason do not approve its creation or creation in this particular form. For them, we will provide for the topic “-”, in other words, “to bury the topic. It is logical that after this response, the user becomes unavailable to be active in the topic. Just look. And on the contrary, somehow once having shown activity (having written a post, having voted for something) the participant loses an opportunity to "bury" it.
: „ – “» , ".
«» , /. .
, , dirty.ru – «».
/ ( ). , , . , , .
, .
, / . , ? It does not matter.
.
, , , – , , «» . – . , …
, , , , . .
, : , , , , .
, , – . , , , – «» . , . :)
, , «» – « ».
1) 2) .
1 , , , . , , , , , . «» . . 3 . – !
, «» . « » ( «»), / – : , , .
.
«» , , ( ): 3-4 , 1-2 . , – , .
– . , . .
, -.
. (--) .
, , .
, -, .
, . – . , , , .
. , . , .
.
HolyWars. Extras
. ?
, — — . , , , .
1) , ( ) ( )? , ? ?
2) , , , . , , , ?
3) .
?
4) «»… ?
5) , 500 «» ( ), … ?
6) , -, . , . ?
. - , ? .
« ...»: ,
. , ,
, . « ».
, , … ,
- , . .
, . – . - , . , - .
, . , . , , , , . , .
.
. . . , , .
– . . .
, , , , . , , . :)
, . / .
But! . , , .
1) , . , – . , , . … :)
2) «» , . – ( , ). !
RPG-. , - . , – .
. «» «».
, ? ! , !
, : , , – « ». « », , , .
! – .
-. . .
:
- , -, , .
( ) .
.
PS , . :
:
,
.
. :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/11642/
All Articles