KR20200066969A - Method for multiple debating to verification type in on-line - Google Patents

Abstract

Embodiments of the present invention relate to a verification type online multiple discussion method, and more specifically, to a discussion method through which a user votes for or against the grounds and the proposition in multiple discussion to produce persuasive power of the proposition, thereby implementing verification type online multiple discussion. In this case, the calculation of the persuasive power is characterized by calculating the persuasive power of each individual through his/her vote, thereby making the persuasive power contribution for each proposition equal to those who voted in majority and who exercised only one vote. So, the method minimizes misuse due to abusiveness such as a lot of writings posted or the like through a system, and provides reliable information through a discussion platform for opinions of the entire society.

Description

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

The disclosure herein relates to a method for multiple discussions online.

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

In recent years, the conflict between the left and right political ideology has deepened, and feminism has heightened conflict between men and women. So, we discuss and talk with each other, but most don't know the nature of the problem in detail. In addition, because knowledge and information that are known to each other are different, confusion is compounded by false information and fake news. So, many sites with extreme tendencies appear.

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

For example, if you usually have a discussion, you will often get a basis that suits your taste, but because you are not familiar with the culture of discussion, you will have a lot of incitement in internet news comments and biased communities. So, unverified comments and posts are misleading.

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

As described above, when summarizing the situation, public opinions are misrepresented due to comments in online news or community bias. This is because public opinion is distorted by the number of recommendations for comments or the dominant text on the bulletin board.

Prior art documents containing prior art in this background are the following patent documents.

(Patent Document 1) US20110185291 A1

For reference, the technology of Patent Document 1 is limited to discussion, but is limited to limiting participation in discussions by simply limiting the number of acquisitions and countermeasures a certain number of times. In addition, in addition to these techniques, techniques such as limiting the participation of discussions directly related to the present technology were searched for as not well known.

Disclosed content is to provide a verifiable online multi-discussion method to minimize misuse due to their abusing to prevent public opinions from being distorted by the number of recommendations of comments or an esoteric article.

The verification type online multi-discussion method according to the embodiment,

In a multi-discussion, votes against the grounds and objections are voted against to produce a convincing power of the proposition, making it a verifiable online multi-discussion.

And, in this case, the calculation of the persuasive power is characterized by calculating the persuasive power of each individual as voted by each individual, and thereby making the convincing power contribution for each proposition equal to those who voted in majority and those who exercised only one vote. do.

According to the embodiments, systemically minimizes misuse due to abusiveness such as Dobae Sung's writing, and provides reliable information through the discussion platform for opinions of the entire society.

In addition, socially, it creates a social culture with a logical way of thinking that can reduce conflicts and increase interests and discuss on the basis of evidence.

1 is a view showing a system to which a verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment is applied as a whole
Figure 2 is a flow chart illustrating a verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment in order
Figure 3 is a flow chart showing the operation of the classification of the abusing at the time of voting according to an embodiment
Figure 4 is a flow chart showing the operation of the abusive classification in order to write a proposition according to an embodiment
5 is a view showing the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment.
6 is a view showing the number of conclusions in the case of abusing according to an embodiment
7 is a view showing a layout according to an embodiment to which the verified online multi-discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied;
8 is a view for explaining a discussion map according to an embodiment to which the verified online multi-discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied;

1 is a view showing the system to which the verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment is applied as a whole.

As shown in FIG. 1, the system according to an embodiment includes a web server 101 and a database 102 having related information thereof to enable a verifiable online multi-discussion by persuasive powers such as propositions and abusing defenses. .

The web server 101 calculates persuasive power in a multi-discussion, so as to be a verified online multi-discussion. In this case, the persuasive power calculation is calculated by each individual, and the persuasive power contribution of each proposition between the people who voted a majority and the one who voted only is the same. So, it has the same effect as the principle of one-by-one voting according to the majority vote. Specifically, the web server 101 allows one proposition (higher proposition) to have a basis and a counterargument, and in addition, each basis and counterargument becomes a new proposition (lower proposition), so the higher proposition + Allows you to continue the child propositions as a set. So, in this state, the web server 101 has a vote for and against each user for each reason and objection, so that the persuasive power of the proposition can be calculated according to the results of the vote for and against the users. On the other hand, in addition to this, the web server 101 prevents the public opinion from being distorted by an abusive article or the like by defending the abusing. Be able to vote for. 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 objections and grounds 1/5.

The database 102 is configured to include categories and Internet-related information, propositional data and voting information, and proposition inquiry data during such verification online multi-discussion. Then, in this case, the proposition data and the voting information are calculated to persuade, voter statistics and analysis to extract and store proposition inquiry data.

2 is a flow chart illustrating a verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment.

As illustrated in FIG. 2, in the verification-type online multi-discussion method according to an embodiment, first, in multi-discussion, a proposition to be debated on-line is created and registered (S201).

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

So, in addition, when writing such a proposition, detailed information related to the proposition is detected on-line so that the proposition details are searched (S202).

In such a case, the detailed inquiry step of the proposition may include, for example, basic information and high-level discussions of the proposition, internet-related information, related discussion, reason and objection, persuasive power of reason and objection, discussion map, persuasive power, persuasive trend graph, discussion participation analysis Inquire about information such as.

Then, in the detailed inquiry of the proposition, in the multiple discussions, the relationship between the parent proposition and the parent proposition is defined as the basis or counterargument, and the basis and the counterargument of each parent proposition are made to be the lower proposition, so that the basis/argument is prepared (S203). .

In this case, the step of preparing the basis/argument (proposition) defines, for example, a connection relationship with the parent proposition as a basis or objection. Then, the entire proposition created by retrieving the relationship is replaced by the previous proposition.

Thus, when making the above grounds and counterarguments through this, by voting against the grounds and counterarguments in favor of multiple discussions, the convincing powers of the propositions are calculated according to the following [Expression], so that it becomes a verifiable online multi-discussion (S204). .

[expression]

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

Persuasive power of each person = {(opposite of support + opposition of objection) / number of votes of the parties}* 100

In this case, the voting stage, for example, votes in favor of evidence and objection. And, for example, a maximum of 1/5 votes are made on the basis and objection. Also, the persuasive power should be calculated based on the result of the vote and the relationship between evidence and objection.

So, it minimizes misuse by abusing and provides reliable information through the discussion platform for opinions of the entire society.

As described above, in one embodiment, a multi-discussion vote is voted in favor of the evidence and objection to calculate the persuasive power of the proposition, thereby making it a verifiable online multi-discussion.

And, in this case, the calculation of the persuasive power is calculated by each individual, and thus the persuasive power contribution of each proposition between the people who voted in majority and the one who exercised only one vote is the same.

So, it is to have the same effect as the principle of one-by-one voting according to the majority vote.

Therefore, through this, systemically minimizes misuse due to abusiveness such as Dobae Sung's writings, and provides reliable information through the discussion platform for opinions of the entire society.

In addition, socially, it creates a social culture with a logical way of thinking that can reduce conflicts and increase interests and discuss on the basis of evidence.

On the other hand, additionally, the averaging defense applied to the verified online multi-discussion method of this embodiment will be described.

The abusing defense applied to the verified online multi-discussion method according to this embodiment confirms the individual's abusing value when voting contrary to the above reasons and objections.

So, as a result of checking the abusing value, if the individual's abusing value is a preset abutting defense value, it is limited to voting on a predetermined number of the total number of evidences and objections, and if the abusing defense value is not, the voting is limited. I never do that.

In this case, the abusing defense allows, for example, to vote for 1/5 of the objections, rationale, and total number of points (rounded up). In addition, in the case of dotvotiing of facilitation, voting rights are given to the number of objections and grounds 1/5.

Therefore, through this, the public opinion is not distorted due to the number of recommendations of comments or the situation such as a dominant article.

3 and 4 are diagrams for explaining the operation of the abusing classification according to one embodiment of the above-described averaging defense applied to the verified online multi-discussion method of FIG. 2.

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

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

In the case of voting of the defense of abusing according to this embodiment, the abusing classification first calculates persuasive power in favor/opposite vote (S301) for the lower proposition (B proposition) in the multi-discussion when calculating the persuasive power of the proposition (S302).

Then, when calculating the persuasive power, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is greater than or equal to the standard persuasive power of a predetermined majority (S303).

As a result of the discrimination, 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 the higher proposition (A proposition) is reflected in the persuasive power (S309). The standard persuasive power indicates the degree of favor of the range that the participants consider to be convincing in the majority vote, and is generally calculated as 68% when expressed as a percentage according to the existing research results. However, these numbers may be input as the initial setting, but the standard persuasiveness value may increase as the discussion proceeds, that is, as the discussion proceeds from the lower proposition to the higher proposition. For example, the changed standard persuasive power value may be defined as the standard persuasive power of the proposition * [1 + (standard persuasive power/10) * the number of subpropositions included in the proposition].

Then, when the persuasive power of the lower proposition is lower than the standard persuasive power of the majority decision, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than or equal to a preset abusing standard persuasive power (S305). The abusing standard persuasive power is the difference value of the 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, if the ratio is higher than the standard persuasive power, the participants accept the majority vote. On the other hand, when it is less than the averaging standard persuasive power, there is a possibility of intentional public opinion on the proposition.

On the other hand, if the determination result, the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the abusing standard persuasive power and includes pros and cons for the basis/opposition (S306), an abusing warning is issued (S307). Then, the abusing value of the corresponding user is increased (S308). On the other hand, if it is not exceeded or included, it is reflected in the high-level proposition persuasiveness (S309). For reference, the above-mentioned standard persuasive power of 68% and the abusing standard persuasive power of 32% are only examples, and necessary values may be varied without departing from the technical spirit of the present invention.

As a result of the discrimination, when the persuasive power of the lower proposition is more than the standard persuasive power of the majority decision, the voting is completed (S304) and the upper proposition (A proposition) is reflected in the persuasive power (S309). Then, if less than, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than or equal to the preset abusing standard persuasive power (S305). In this case, the standard persuasive power of the majority vote is defined as 68% of the persuasive power.

On the other hand, if the determination result, the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the abusing standard persuasive power and includes pros and cons for the basis/opposition (S306), an abusing warning is issued (S307). Then, the abusing value of the corresponding user is increased (S308). On the other hand, if it is not exceeded or included, it is reflected in the high-level proposition persuasiveness (S309). In this case, the averaging standard persuasive power is defined as 32% by the persuasive power following the majority vote mentioned above.

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

Next, description will be made of the abusing classification when preparing the proposition of the abusing defense according to an embodiment (see FIG. 4 ).

The abusing classification according to this embodiment first checks the presence or absence of the proposition of the same content among the propositions related to the parent proposition (A proposition) in the pre-registered online multi-discussion when writing the lower proposition (B proposition). (S402).

Thus, as a result of the confirmation, when writing a lower proposition, if there is the proposition with the same content among propositions related to the upper proposition, an a warning is issued (S403). In the case of writing, the abusing number of the corresponding user is increased (S404). So, through this, it can be used as an abusive defense against the user. On the other hand, when writing a lower proposition, if there is no proposition of the same content among the propositions related to the upper proposition, the writing of the lower proposition (B proposition) is completed.

So, through this, the abusive classification is made when writing a proposition.

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

As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the number of abusing cases according to an embodiment is first defined as the upper proposition of the B proposition before the above description with reference to FIG. 5. In addition, the B proposition is defined as the sub-proposition that is the basis or objection of the A proposition. In addition, it is assumed that the C proposition is a sub-proposition of the B proposition, and 100% persuasive.

In the case of such a definition, the following four cases occur in the number of abusing cases.

The first is the case where proposition propositions can become an abyss if the proposition disagreement is lacking, but there is sufficient evidence.

And, the second is when propositional propositions can become an observer if the propositional propositions provide good grounds for refutation.

In addition, the third is a case in which the dissent of the proposition and the participation of the dissent are encouraged.

And, the fourth is the case where there are many people who participated in the case where there is no persuasiveness of the proposition and there is the participation of opponents of the proposition.

Thus, according to Fig. 6, the number of cases is concluded.

Specifically, the number of cases The conclusion is the number of cases where abusing is prevented by a few objections to unfounded claims.

Here, if there is persuasiveness of the B proposition, and if the opponents do not participate or not, his conclusion is that those who voted for the B proposition can become an avoir. On the other hand, in the state of persuasiveness of the B proposition, if the opponents participate or not, his conclusion is that those who voted for the B proposition can become an observer.

On the other hand, on the other hand, if there is no persuasive power of the B proposition, and the opposition's participation is not, his conclusion is a problem because the opposition is not participating. On the other hand, if there is no convincing power of the B proposition, if the opponents participate or not, his conclusion is that if many people participated, it could be.

7 is a view showing a layout according to an embodiment to which the verified online multi-discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied.

As illustrated in FIG. 7, the layout according to an embodiment creates a proposition that, for example, a legislation prohibiting dog meat is prohibited. In this case, when writing the proposition, when the user clicks, the persuasive trend graph is overlaid, and the next discussion map is overlaid.

Next, the layout according to the exemplary embodiment writes content about the proposition. In this case, the contents are classified into hash tags.

And, in addition, the layout according to the embodiment represents the basis and objection.

From here, the basis is to the bill... "There are many countries that eat more severe things and dogs and cows are ???", and the objections are "Eat and don't eat and leave it to your doctor." Should I be against it?" And, in this case, when clicked, it is shared as a chat room or as a Facebook page.

Thus, a layout according to a verified online multi-method according to an embodiment is provided.

8 is a diagram for explaining a discussion map according to an embodiment to which the verified online multi-discussion method of FIG. 2 is applied.

As illustrated in FIG. 8, the discussion map according to an embodiment may have a basis and an objection. In this case, each basis and objection becomes a new proposition. In this case, the proposition is a subproposition. In addition, the relationship of the upper proposition + the lower proposition can be continued as a set in a lower order.

So, sub-discussion is possible accordingly.

In addition, further to this, according to one embodiment, each of the grounds and the objections has votes in favor of users.

In this case, the persuasive power of the proposition is calculated according to the results of the votes and the votes of the users, and the persuasive power of the proposition consists of persuasive power for each user type. The user types are, for example, discussion groups, age groups, regions, and sectors.

So, through this, we analyze the participation in discussion.

* Explanation of reference numerals for main parts of drawings *
101: web server 102: database

Claims (4)

In the case of multiple discussions, the first step is to create a proposition by writing and registering a proposition to be discussed online;
A second step of detecting detailed information related to the proposition online and making a proposition detailed inquiry when writing the proposition in the first step;
In the detailed inquiry of the proposition in the second step, the third proposition is made by defining the connection with the upper proposition as the basis or counterargument in multiple discussions, and making the basis and the counterargument of each parent proposition as the lower proposition. step; And
When preparing the rationale and objection in the fourth step, by voting against the rationale and objection in multiple discussions, by calculating the persuasive power of the proposition according to the following equation,
[expression]
Persuasive power of proposition = sum of individual persuasive power / number of voters
Persuasive power of each person = {(opposite of support + opposition of objection) / number of votes of the parties}* 100
And a fourth step of enabling a verifiable online multi-discussion. According to claim 1,
The fourth step
Step 4-1, when voting contrary to the above reasons and objections, checking an individual's abusing number; And
As a result of checking the above abusing value, if the individual's abusing value is a preset abusing defense value, it is limited to voting on a predetermined number of the total number of evidences and objections, and if the abusing defense value is not, the voting is not limited. A verifiable online multi-discussion method comprising step 4-2. The method of claim 1 or 2,
The fourth step
When calculating the persuasive power of the proposition, the 4-1 step of calculating the persuasive power in favor/opposite vote for the lower proposition in the multi-discussion;
When calculating the persuasive power of step 4-1, the persuasive power of the lower proposition is
A 4-2 step of determining whether or not it is more than the predetermined standard persuasive power of the majority vote;
As a result of the discrimination, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is more than the standard persuasive power of the majority decision, it is reflected in the upper persuasive power, and if less, it is determined whether or not the persuasive power of the lower proposition is lower than or equal to the preset abusing standard persuasive power. step; And
As a result of the discrimination in step 4-3, if the persuasive power of the lower proposition is less than the abusive standard persuasive power and includes pros and cons for the basis/rejection, an abusing warning is issued. Including steps 4-4,
The 4-4 steps
And a fourth 4-1 step of increasing an individual's abusing value by a preset value upon the abusing warning. According to claim 1,
The third step is
A 3-1 step of confirming the presence or absence of a proposition of the same content among the propositions related to the parent proposition in the pre-registered online multi-discussion when writing the sub proposition in the third step; And
And a third-second step of completing an abortion warning when there is a proposition of the 3-1 step, and completing a sub-proposition when the proposition of the 3-1 step is not present. Method of discussion.

Images