Wikicracy stores information about who recommended whom. Thanks to this, if someone attacks your group by adding a large number of their henchmen, there will be a chance to defend yourself because you will know from whom the attack began and who belongs to the enemy group.
That is why it is worth following the rule that a new person is added by the one who knows this person and guarantees his honesty.
Exception: Such information is missing only in the case of the founding fathers. Nevertheless, the system allows for the expulsion of the founding father from the group.
Each user can see how many points he himself has. However, the system does not display how many points other people have. This solution was adopted to avoid sheep rush.
The system also does not show who accepts whom, so no one can be forced to accept someone.
It is worth remembering that if you neglect to accept someone, a small group can throw that person out of the group.
Similarly, if you neglect to deny someone, most will get tired of the person who is bothering the group.
Accepting a person gives them +1 point.
The neutral ratio is 0 points.
I do not accept this -1 point.
The points are added up. The required acceptance threshold increases with the population of the group and is calculated as the population logarithm* multiplier.
Acceptance calculation formula:
wymagana_reputacja = round ( log ( Population ) * Multiplier )
x – population y – percentage of
people who must accept a new person in order to be accepted group
The larger the multiplier, the harder it is to accept a new person and the easier it is to block an existing person.
Greater multiplier = less open community and greater security.
The smaller the multiplier, the easier it is to accept a new person, but also the harder it is to block an existing person.
Smaller multiplier = more open community and less security.
Information about who accepts whom is not presented anywhere.
Everyone only sees their own number of points in their profile.
New people have only as many points at the start as they actually got.
Existing individuals get Accepts from the newly arrived person automatically. This had to be done because old people would be automatically kicked out of the group as its population grew.
This mechanism was created because a few years ago the association "Direct Democracy" was attacked by the party "Direct Democracy". The party added many people at once to our association, and since the people of the party were always in agreement with each other, it was easy for them to tip the scales of victory in referendums. The Facebook group was also attacked and destroyed by the fact that the disturbing people could not be removed. Normal calm people do not fight with trolls, do not report them to the admin, do not negotiate – they just stop talking and the group dies.
If the decision to expel someone from the group were to be public (this is the case on FB), then the use of banishment would become extremely difficult. Normal people resort to such punishment only as a last resort.
If there is an administrator, it is not feasible to throw out his friends.
If the law is interpretable, then over time some will be disadvantaged and others will be privileged.
That is why the Athenians voted on the banishment anonymously.
Everyone in the group should realize that if they see too emotional a discussion, they should try to calm it down.
I plan to strive to ensure that as many regulations as possible are programmed because it eliminates the interpretation of the law. After all, the interpretability of the law is in the top 5 biggest problems in Poland.
The method of voting on membership is brutal, but I believe it will make us nice to each other.