Final)
Я сам не люблю, when criticized unconstructively.
Ie. I didn't have a goal to finish on the thesis “All **** races, and I am D'Artagnan”, therefore I will offer my vision of a solution to the problem.
If you think well, then a resource like smartlab is responsible for the statements of a user only if, when the user cannot be called to account for his words because, that the environment for communication is organized in this way – а за это, the owner of the resource is already responsible.
Ie. for those, who is in the tank: imagine, if there was such a court, in which formal charges could be brought against the defendant ANONYMOUS, ie. without incurring responsibility for perjury and the impossibility of filing a counterclaim. Obviously, the author of such a court organization should be responsible for the absurdity of the current situation, not anonymous, am I wrong?
That's why, that there would be no complaints about “discussion platform”, it must ensure that the initial conditions are fair to all participants in potential discussions.
If rude, then the options are:
- Anonymous goes to person with another anonymous
- Anonymous becomes personal with a real verified person or vice versa.
- A real verified person becomes a person with a similar status in the system.
Как вы уже догадались, Smartlab bears responsibility for any scars only in the second case, because. it is the smart lab that creates unequal(unfair) conditions for user interaction.
The logic is VERY simple. Like poker. Before, what will happen any action – risks should be equal for everyone, sitting at the table.
Ie. criticism, damaging reputation can ONLY be obtained from, who himself can lose this reputation, in case of answer.
ALL.
ВСЁЁЁЁЁЁЁ.
No more rules.
If anonymous, criticizes the anonymous author.. but none of them can lose their reputation.
Если же Александр Gerchik, will write on smartlab, that Maitrade has a little *** n, because. he saw it in the toilet at the smartlab conference, then I will not blame Timothy for this post.. I will go to Gerchik's house and call him to account))) Do you understand?) And then Gerchik for false testimony will lose the trust of the community.. next time no one will believe him). It will then be impossible to create a new account and immediately have the initial level of trust in Gerchik. Like this.
So, specific steps for a smartlab:
Srach and mats of anonyms among themselves, you already seem to be cleaning, because. they are not interesting to anyone and do not add attendance. It is your right.
All others are presented to real persons, whom everyone knows, can be accepted ONLY from people of the same status.
If someone wants to unfairly or deservedly crap Vasily Oleinik, then it is permissible, if everyone knows who this one is “somebody” and not only that, it is desirable that he also regularly attend various traders' get-togethers, what would, in the case of an undeserved obser, get a bread slicer).
All other options should be removed by moderators immediately, and if you haven't noticed, then on the very first complaint of the defendant because they create completely unequal conditions for the answer.
This is my personal opinion.