Facebook PixelUniversal guidelines for collaborative communication
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Brainstorming session

Universal guidelines for collaborative communication

Universal guidelines for collaborative communication

Image credit: Toa Heftiba / unsplash

By Darko Savic on Oct 19, 2020

Creative contributions

A common language

by Shubhankar Kulkarni on Oct 20, 2020

Darko Savic a month ago
AI will soon be able to solve the language barrier problem

Avoid meetings

by Shubhankar Kulkarni on Oct 20, 2020

Rivalrous dynamics exposure protocol

by Darko Savic on Oct 20, 2020

Shubhankar Kulkarni a month ago
I like the idea. I found a bug and cannot find a way to overcome it. Things will not remain black and white as time passes. What happens if 50% of the community supports the protocol and the remaining opposes? Secondly, if 51% support, is majority a sufficient enough criterion to decide the virtual fate of a person? There is a high chance that the majority may be wrong in this case.
Darko Savic a month ago
Shubhankar KulkarniIf the protocol makes it into such universal guidelines for collaborative communication it would be implemented by communities at the time of inception. People would then join (or not) based on whether they can play by the rules of such communities. The rules would by default include collaborative communication. People who don't like it would gather around different types of environments that are as hostile as any forum today.

Existing communities deciding whether to implement such rules (or not) would themselves be responsible to figure out a fair way of reaching consensus.

Communities that already have such a protocol in place can look at it this way:

All this protocol really achieves is to hold a spotlight on the "side story" that goes on alongside any conversation. If there is anything nasty in the main story or the side story, the protocol serves to tell everyone "hey, that wasn't nice". The penalty is not even required. Someone who is trying to one-up another conversation participant and gets caught doing so is already penalized by loss of virtue. Really nasty people would get excluded from communities anyway because they are detrimental to the environment.

The score could as well be informational only. If people gang up on each-other and vote just to manipulate the results then the environment is hostile in any case and it's time to move out or clean up.
Shubhankar Kulkarni a month ago
Darko Savic Your last paragraph sums up my fears perfectly. A non-policing (no punishment) environment works for small communities. When you talk global, things get chaotic and social dynamics change. We then need police to ensure justice (and equality). If we let the chaos continue (no police), it is better to move out, as you rightly pointed out. However, when the community is global, there is nowhere to move out. Cleaning up is the only way out, which certainly requires police. Then why not use the police from the start and maintain discipline for a longer period?

Your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor