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]