August 7, 2010 at 22:29Conflicts at collective sites: possible solutions
Providing easy access from various places at any time to collective venues, the Internet, firstly, intensified social interactions. Secondly, and more importantly, different people got easy access. Often even too different - in terms of education, age, interests, social status, monetary wealth and more. Conflicts are generally inherent in human collectives, but these two factors exacerbate the problem.
What methods are possible if not solutions, then at least mitigations? The path is essentially the same and it is traditional - the audience is segmented by different sites, grouped by common features. But there are two implementations of this path - one is also traditional, when the sites are objectively different - they have different URLs, different positioning, functionality and so on.
The second one seems less traditional, in some aspects it has been used for a long time, but I haven’t encountered any full-fledged options yet - when the difference exists only in the perception of the participants through appropriate individual settings for the “visibility” of the content generated by other participants. For example, you create your own personal black list of people whose posts and comments you will not see at all. At the same time, you will be in the same space with them and some of the other users will see these posts, as well as they will respond to them. At the same time, this solves the ban problem, because communities are rarely completely unanimous regarding banning someone. Of course, here are possible options - for example, not to see all posts of such and such a participant, except those marked with such and such a tag. Or not see his texts, except in cases if they caused a big response in the community. Or a response personally to you significant people - in the choice of settings there is where to unfold imagination.
Not only content can be perceived individually, but the names of sections for its appearance too. For example, the names of any section of the forum, all participants will see in their own way, in accordance with their tastes and preferences.
I would call this the concept of "subjectively different sites."
What methods are possible if not solutions, then at least mitigations? The path is essentially the same and it is traditional - the audience is segmented by different sites, grouped by common features. But there are two implementations of this path - one is also traditional, when the sites are objectively different - they have different URLs, different positioning, functionality and so on.
The second one seems less traditional, in some aspects it has been used for a long time, but I haven’t encountered any full-fledged options yet - when the difference exists only in the perception of the participants through appropriate individual settings for the “visibility” of the content generated by other participants. For example, you create your own personal black list of people whose posts and comments you will not see at all. At the same time, you will be in the same space with them and some of the other users will see these posts, as well as they will respond to them. At the same time, this solves the ban problem, because communities are rarely completely unanimous regarding banning someone. Of course, here are possible options - for example, not to see all posts of such and such a participant, except those marked with such and such a tag. Or not see his texts, except in cases if they caused a big response in the community. Or a response personally to you significant people - in the choice of settings there is where to unfold imagination.
Not only content can be perceived individually, but the names of sections for its appearance too. For example, the names of any section of the forum, all participants will see in their own way, in accordance with their tastes and preferences.
I would call this the concept of "subjectively different sites."