KR102181891B1 - Method for multiple debating to verification type in on-line - Google Patents

Abstract

The embodiment relates to a verification-type online multiple discussion method.
Specifically, this method of debate enables verification-type online multi-discussion by voting for and against the grounds and objections in the multi-debate to calculate the persuasive power of the proposition.
In this case, the persuasive power is calculated by calculating the individual's persuasive power as voted by each individual, and by doing so, the contribution of the persuasive power to each proposition between the majority voted person and the person exercising only one vote is the same. do.
Therefore, systematically, it minimizes misuse due to abusing of papers, etc., and provides reliable information about the opinions of the whole society through a discussion platform.

Description

Method for multiple debating to verification type in on-line}

Disclosed herein is a method of conducting multiple discussions online.

Unless otherwise indicated herein, the content described in this section is not prior art to the claims of this application, and inclusion in this section is not admitted to be prior art.

In recent years, the political ideological confrontation between the left and the right has deepened, and the conflict between men and women is increasing due to feminism. So, we have discussions and conversations with each other, but most do not know in detail the nature of the problem. Also, because the knowledge and information we know each other is different, the confusion is further aggravated by false information and fake news. So, the situation is that many extreme-oriented sites appear.

In addition, there are also problems with news comments and the current bulletin board system.

For example, when discussing discussions in general, they often bring evidence that suits their tastes, but because they are not familiar with the culture of discussion, Internet news comments and agitation in the biased community are rampant. So, unverified comments and posts are misleading.

In addition, there is no specialized discussion platform. For example, the general community and SNS are insufficient to use as a platform for communication or as a discussion service. In addition, discussion boards such as Daum Agora are often biased in opinion, and there is no popular discussion platform based on facts.

As described above, summarizing this situation, there are cases in which public opinion is misrepresented due to comments on online news or the bias of the community. This is because public opinion is distorted by the number of comments recommended or the plausibility of the bulletin board.

The prior art documents containing the prior art of this background are the following patent documents.

(Patent Document 1) US20110185291 A1

For reference, although the technique of Patent Document 1 is limited for discussion, it is a degree to limit participation in discussion by simply limiting the number of arguments and countermeasures. In addition, in addition to these techniques, techniques such as limiting participation in discussions directly related to the present technique, etc. were searched as not well known.

The disclosed content is intended to provide a verification-type online multi-discussion method to minimize misuse due to their abusing so as to prevent distorting public opinion due to the number of recommendations of comments or smoldering articles.

The verification type online multiple discussion method according to the embodiment,

In multiple discussions, by voting in favor and opposite of the grounds and objections, the persuasive power of the proposition is calculated, making it a verifiable online multiple discussion.

In this case, the persuasive power is calculated by calculating the individual's persuasive power as voted by each individual, and by doing so, the contribution of the persuasive power to each proposition between the majority voted person and the person exercising only one vote is the same. do.

According to the embodiments, systematically, misuse due to abusing of papers and the like is minimized, and reliable information is provided through a discussion platform for opinions of the whole society.

In addition, socially, we create a social culture with a logical way of thinking that can alleviate conflicts and raise interests and discuss based on evidence.

1 is a diagram showing an overall system to which a verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment is applied
2 is a flow chart sequentially showing a verification-type online multiple discussion method according to an embodiment
3 is a flowchart showing an operation of an abusing classification during voting according to an embodiment in order
4 is a flowchart showing an operation of abusing classification in order when creating a proposition according to an embodiment
5 is a diagram showing the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment
6 is a diagram showing a conclusion of the number of abuzzing cases according to an embodiment
7 is a view showing a layout according to an embodiment to which the verification-type online multiple discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied
8 is a view for explaining a discussion map according to an embodiment to which the verification-type online multiple discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied

1 is a diagram showing an overall system to which a verification-type online multiple discussion method is applied according to an embodiment.

As shown in Fig. 1, the system according to an embodiment includes a web server 101 for conducting verification-type online multi-discussion by persuasive power of propositions and abusing defense, and a database 102 having related information thereof. .

In the case of multiple discussions, the web server 101 calculates persuasive power to enable verification-type online multiple discussions. In this case, the persuasive power is calculated by each individual voting, and by doing so, the contribution of the persuasive power to each proposition between the majority voted person and the person exercising only one vote becomes the same. So, it has the same effect as the principle of one person and one vote based on a majority vote. Specifically, the web server 101 allows one proposition (higher proposition) to have grounds and objections, and in addition to this, each basis and objection becomes a new proposition (lower proposition), so that the higher proposition +The relationship of the subpropositions can be continued as a set. Thus, in this state, the web server 101 has the user's votes for and against each of the grounds and the objections, through which the persuasive power of the proposition is calculated according to the results of the users' votes against and against. On the other hand, and, in addition to this, the web server 101 prevents distorting public opinion by abusing texts, etc., for this purpose, for this purpose, for example, 1/5 of the total number of counterarguments and grounds (raise the decimal point) To be able to vote on. In this case, as another example, in the case of dotvotiing of facilitation, the web server has the right to vote on the number of counterarguments and grounds 1/5.

The database 102 is configured to include category and Internet-related information, proposition data and voting information, and proposition inquiry data during such verification-type online multiple discussion. And, in this case, the proposition data and voting information are calculated and persuasive power, voter statistics and analysis are performed to extract and store proposition inquiry data.

2 is a flow chart sequentially showing a verification-type online multiple discussion method according to an embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 2, in the verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment, first, during multi-discussion, a proposition to be discussed online is created and registered to create a proposition (S201).

In this case, in the step of preparing the specification, for example, a proposition is prepared, but the entire previously created proposition is searched. So, in the case of the same argument as the previous claim, it moves (substitute) to the inquiry of the proposition. So, accordingly, a step of writing a specification according to an embodiment is performed.

So, when creating such a proposition, detailed information related to the proposition is detected online so that detailed proposition is searched (S202).

In this case, the detailed inquiry step of the proposition is, for example, basic information and high-level discussion of the proposition, Internet-related information, related discussion, evidence and objection, persuasive power of evidence and objection, discussion map, persuasion power, persuasive power trend graph, discussion participation analysis. Do this by inquiring information such as.

Then, when the above proposition is detailed inquiries, the relationship between the upper proposition and the connection is defined as grounds or objections in multiple discussions, and the grounds and objections of each higher proposition are written so as to be lower propositions, so that the basis/objection is created (S203). .

In this case, in the step of preparing the basis/objection (proposition), for example, the relationship between the upper proposition and the connection is defined as a basis or objection. Then, the entire proposition created in the past is searched and created by replacing the relationship with the previous proposition.

So, through this, when creating the above grounds and objections, vote against the grounds and objections in multiple discussions, and calculate the persuasive power of the proposition according to the following [expression] so that it becomes a verification-type online multiple discussion (S204). .

[expression]

Persuasive power of proposition = sum of individual persuasive power / number of voters

Individual's persuasive power = {(Affirmation of evidence + disagreement of objection) / Number of votes by parties}* 100

In this case, the voting stage votes for and against, for example, grounds and objections. And, for example, up to 1/5 votes on the grounds and objections. In addition, it is possible to calculate the persuasive power based on the relationship between the voted result and the grounds and objections.

Therefore, accordingly, it minimizes misuse and abuse caused by abusing, and provides reliable information about the opinions of the whole society through a discussion platform.

As described above, in an exemplary embodiment, by calculating the persuasive power of the proposition by voting in favor and opposite of the grounds and objections on the multiple discussion, the verification type online multiple discussion is made.

In this case, the persuasive power is calculated by each individual voting, and by doing so, the contribution of persuasive power to each proposition between the majority voted person and the person who cast only one vote is equalized.

Therefore, it is to have the same effect as the principle of one person and one vote according to the majority vote.

Therefore, systematically, it minimizes misuse due to abusing of papers, etc., and provides reliable information about the opinions of society through a discussion platform.

In addition, socially, we create a social culture with a logical way of thinking that can alleviate conflicts and raise interests and discuss based on evidence.

On the other hand, an abusing defense applied to the verification-type online multiple discussion method of this embodiment will be additionally described.

The abusing defense applied to the verification-type online multi-discussion method according to this embodiment checks the individual's abusing value when voting against or against the above grounds and objections.

So, as a result of checking the above abusing values, if the individual's abusing value is a preset abusing defense value, it is limited to votes for a preset partial number of the total number of grounds and objections, and if it is not the abusing defense value, voting is restricted. I never do that.

In this case, the abusing defense allows you to vote for, for example, counterarguments and grounds, for example 1/5 of the total number (rounded up to the decimal point). And, in the case of dotvotiing of facilitation, the voting authority is given to the number of counterarguments and grounds 1/5.

So, through this, public opinion is not distorted due to circumstances such as the number of comments or papers that are plagued.

3 and 4 are diagrams for explaining an operation of an abusing classification according to an embodiment according to the above-described abusing defense applied to the verification-type online multiple discussion method of FIG. 2.

Specifically, FIG. 3 is a flow chart sequentially showing an operation of abusing classification when voting according to an embodiment. And, Figure 4 is a flow chart showing the operation of the abusing classification in order when creating a proposition according to an embodiment.

As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, an operation of an abusing classification when voting first according to the operation of an abusing defense according to an embodiment will be described (see FIG. 3 ).

In the voting of the abusing defense according to this embodiment, the abusing classification first calculates the persuasive power of the proposition by voting for or against the lower proposition (proposition B) in multiple discussions (S301) (S302).

Then, when calculating the persuasive power, it is determined whether the persuasive power of the lower proposition is greater than the standard persuasive power of a pre-set majority vote (S303).

As a result of the determination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is greater than the standard persuasive power of the majority vote, the voting is completed (S304), and is reflected in the persuasive power of the higher proposition (Proposition A) (S309). The standard persuasive power represents the degree of approval within the range that the participants are judged to be convincing by the majority vote, and is generally calculated as 68% when expressed as a percentage according to the results of existing studies. However, such a number may be input as the initial setting value, but the standard persuasive power value may increase as the discussion proceeds, that is, as the discussion proceeds from a lower proposition to a higher proposition. For example, the changed standard persuasive power can be defined as the standard persuasive power of the proposition * [1 + (standard persuasive power / 10) * the number of subpropositions included in the proposition].

And, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is lower than the standard persuasive power of the majority vote, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the pre-set abusing standard persuasive power (S305). Abusing standard persuasive power is the difference between standard persuasive power. For example, if the standard persuasive power is set to 68%, the abusing standard persuasive power is calculated and set as 100%-68%=32%.

In this case, the standard persuasive power of the proposition is, for example, that the participants accept the majority vote if they approve it with a ratio of more than the standard persuasive power, and on the contrary, if it is less than the standard persuasive power of abusing, there is a possibility of intentionally creating public opinion on the proposition.

On the other hand, as a result of the determination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the abusing standard persuasive power and includes support and opposition to the grounds/objections (S306), an abusing warning (S307). Then, the user's abusing value is increased (S308). On the other hand, if it is exceeded or not included, it is reflected in the persuasive power of the higher proposition (S309). For reference, the above-described standard persuasive power of 68% and abusing standard persuasive power of 32% are only examples, and the necessary values may vary within the scope not departing from the technical idea of the present invention.

As a result of the determination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is greater than the standard persuasive power of the majority vote, the voting is completed (S304) and is reflected in the persuasive power of the higher proposition (Proposition A) (S309). And, if it is less than, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the preset abusing standard persuasive power (S305). In this case, the standard persuasive power of the majority vote is defined as 68% persuasive power, and the basis of the numerical value for the persuasive power is based on the content that a majority vote is followed if 68% or more agrees.

On the other hand, as a result of the determination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the abusing standard persuasive power and includes support and opposition to the grounds/objections (S306), an abusing warning (S307). Then, the user's abusing value is increased (S308). On the other hand, if it is exceeded or not included, it is reflected in the persuasive power of the higher proposition (S309). In this case, the standard persuasive power of the abusing is defined as 32% by the persuasive power of the majority vote described above.

So, through this, it is possible to classify abusing when voting.

Next, an abusing classification will be described when creating a proposition of abusing defense according to an embodiment (see FIG. 4).

In the abusing classification according to this embodiment, first, when writing the above lower proposition (proposition B) (S401), check the presence or absence of a proposition of the same content among propositions related to the higher proposition (proposition A) in a pre-registered online multiple discussion Do (S402).

So, as a result of the above confirmation, when a lower proposition is created, an abusing warning is issued when there is the proposition of the same content among propositions related to the upper proposition (S403). If it is still to be written, the user's abusing value is increased (S404). So, through this, it is possible to be an abusing defense for the user. On the other hand, when writing a lower proposition, if there is no proposition with the same content among propositions related to the higher proposition, the lower proposition (proposition B) is completed.

So, through this, abusing classification is performed when writing a proposition.

5 and 6 are diagrams for explaining the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment for the abusing classification of FIGS. 3 and 4. Specifically, FIG. 5 is a diagram showing the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment. And, FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a conclusion of the number of absent cases according to an embodiment.

As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment is first defined as a proposition A as a higher proposition of proposition B prior to such description with reference to FIG. 5. And, proposition B is defined as a subproposition that is the basis or objection of proposition A. In addition, it is assumed that proposition C is a subproposition of proposition B, which is 100% persuasive.

In the case of this definition, the following four cases occur as the number of abusing cases accordingly.

The first is a case where the proposition's proponents can become an abuser if the participation of the proposition is insufficient but the evidence is sufficient.

And, the second is the case where proposition advocates can become abusers if they provide good grounds for refutation.

Also, the third is the case in which the participation of the opponents is encouraged when the proposition is not persuasive and there is no participation of the opponents of the proposition.

And, the fourth is a case where there is no persuasive power of the proposition and there is participation of opponents of the proposition, and it is possible when a lot of people participate.

Thus, accordingly, a conclusion of the number of cases is obtained as shown in FIG. 6.

Specifically, the number of cases The conclusion is the number of cases that prevent abusing with a small number of objections to unfounded claims.

Here, if the B proposition is persuasive and the opponents do not participate, his conclusion is that those who favor the B proposition can become the abuser. On the other hand, in the state of the convincing power of Proposition B, if the participation of opponents participates, his conclusion is that those who favor Proposition B can become abusers.

On the other hand, on the other hand, if proposition B is not convincing and whether or not the opponents participate, his conclusion is a problem because the opponents do not participate. On the other hand, if there is no persuasive power of Proposition B and the participation of opponents participates, his conclusion is that it can be done if many people participated.

7 is a diagram illustrating a layout according to an embodiment to which the verification-type online multiple discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied.

As shown in FIG. 7, the layout according to an embodiment creates a proposition that, for example, let's make a bill prohibiting eating dog meat. In this case, when the proposition is written, when the user clicks, the persuasive trend graph is overlaid, and the next discussion map is overlaid.

Next, in the layout according to the embodiment, the content of the proposition is written. In this case, the content creation is classified into categories with hash tags.

And, in addition to this, the layout according to the embodiment represents grounds and objections.

Here, the basis for the bill is... "There are many countries that eat more severe foods, but dogs and cows are ???", and the objection is "You have to leave it to your own doctor if you don't eat it" and "Then the person who raises pigs eats pigs. Should I be against it?" And, in this case, when clicked, it is shared through a chat room or through Facebook.

Thus, a layout according to a verification-type online multiplexing method according to an embodiment is provided.

FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a discussion map according to an embodiment to which the verification-type online multiple discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied.

As shown in FIG. 8, in the discussion map according to an embodiment, a higher proposition may have grounds and objections. In this case, each of the reasons and objections becomes a new proposition. In this case, the proposition is a subproposition. In addition, the relationship between the upper proposition + lower proposition can be continued as a set.

So, it is possible to continue sub-discussion accordingly.

Further, furthermore, according to an embodiment, the respective grounds and objections have a vote of favor and opposition from users.

In this case, the persuasive power of the proposition is calculated according to the results of the users' votes for and against, and the persuasive power of the proposition is made up of persuasive power for each user type. The user types are, for example, by discussion group, by age, by region and by industry.

So, through this, we analyze participation in discussion.

* Description of the symbols for the main parts of the drawing *
101: web server 102: database

Claims (4)

A first step of extracting and storing data for proposition inquiry after persuasive power, voter statistics and analysis by calculating proposition data and voting information so that propositions can be prepared by creating and registering propositions to be discussed online in the case of multiple discussions in the web server;
A second step of detecting detailed information related to the proposition on-line when creating the proposition in the first step in the web server to perform a proposition detail inquiry;
When the proposition in the second step is detailed in the web server, the relationship between the upper proposition and the connection is defined as grounds or objections in multiple discussions, and the grounds and objections of each higher proposition are written so that they are lower propositions. The third step; And
When writing the grounds and objections in the third step in the web server, vote against the grounds and objections in multiple discussions in favor of or against the argument, and calculate the persuasive power of the proposition according to the following [expression],
[expression]
Persuasive power of proposition = sum of individual persuasive power / number of voters
Individual's persuasive power = {(Affirmation of evidence + disagreement of objection) / Number of votes by parties}* 100
Including; a fourth step of allowing verification-type online multi-discussion
The second step;
Basic information of the proposition and high-level discussion, Internet-related information, related discussion, evidence and objection, persuasive power of evidence and objection, discussion map, persuasive power, persuasive power trend graph, detailed information of discussion participation analysis,
The fourth step; the
A step 4-1 of confirming an individual's abusing value when voting against the grounds and objections; And
As a result of checking the above abusing values, if the individual's abusing value is a preset abusing defense value, it is limited to votes for a preset partial number of the total number of grounds and objections, and if it is not the abusing defense value, voting is not restricted. Including step 4-2;
The step 4-1;
When calculating the persuasive power of the proposition, the persuasive power is calculated by voting for or against the lower proposition in multiple discussions, and in step 4-2, it is determined whether the persuasive power of the sub proposition is higher than the standard persuasive power of the pre-set majority vote. and
The fourth step; the
As a result of the determination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is higher than the standard persuasive power of the majority vote, it is reflected in the persuasive power of the upper proposition, and if it is less than the fourth-3, determining whether the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the preset abusing standard persuasive power. step; And
As a result of the determination of step 4-3, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the persuasive power of the abusing standard and includes the support and disagreement of the grounds/objections, an abusing warning is given, and if exceeding or not including it, the persuasive power of the upper proposition is reflected. Including; step 4-4;
The 4-4 steps
In the case of the abusing warning, a 4-4-1 step of increasing the individual's abusing value by a preset value; and
The third step;
A step 3-1 of confirming the presence or absence of a proposition of the same content among propositions related to the upper proposition in a pre-registered online multiple discussion when creating a lower proposition in the third step; And
Including a 3-2 step of giving an abusing warning when there is a proposition in the 3-1 step, and completing the creation of a lower proposition when there is no proposition in the 3-1 step.
Verification type online multiple discussion method, characterized in that.

delete delete delete

Images