I've always found the anger to be reactionary, temporary, if we keep talking it works itself out and the love and respect is long term. I usually aspire to come to some common ground before quitting, even if it is emotionally taxing for me. Sometimes I have a lot of background opinion to aire first so it may take a while.
But these client ideas are interesting. Maybe different techniques could be trial run to see how they affect the discourse.
Happens to me too sometimes 🫂
I'm open to suggestions.
I can imagine a "mode" of interaction called "debate mode". Two or more users agree to enter this mode. The messages sent in the debate mode are public, but each costs the sender N sats. That N is distributed amongst all the other debaters and is a function of the length of each message.
So, let's say that A, B, and C agree to debate mode. A public message is sent announcing the debate. From that point on messages that are replies in the thread of that message will be tagged with the debate agreement. When A replies with a message of 250 characters, 250 sats will be distributed to B and C.
It costs to be a loudmouth, and it pays to sit and listen. On the other hand if you think you have something worth saying, then you pay to say it, and others are paid to listen to it.
That would be fun to implement. I doubt anyone would actually agree to use it. ;-)
From: mikedilger at 11/03 17:37
> I've always found the anger to be reactionary, temporary, if we keep talking it works itself out and the love and respect is long term. I usually aspire to come to some common ground before quitting, even if it is emotionally taxing for me. Sometimes I have a lot of background opinion to aire first so it may take a while.
>
> But these client ideas are interesting. Maybe different techniques could be trial run to see how they affect the discourse.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?
...for a price... ;-)
From: crypt0cranium<-se... at 11/04 12:13
> Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
We don't have an agreed central question of debate. I think I'm demonstrating NOT that Hamas supporters are right, but that Kisin does not understand the reasoning behind their positions and presumes they stem from various characterature straw man leftie positions. I'm trying to show you can come to the same positions without holding any of those leftie positions.
If we want to debate we need to start from a central question.
How about using your voice in the message?
Using async voice messages carry more info than pure text. You hear the other person and it’s also harder to be angry based on my experience with https://www.getairchat.com/ this year.
There could be some really cool ways to view the debate too - I once took a stab at building a tool to have a conversation with many forking side-tangents. The intent being to find all the places where core assumptions differed that gives rise to the overall opinion difference and work on the forks that seem promising.
