Community Observation: Debate on Door Sensors and Clash of Kings

Today, the community staff in the neighborhood group announced that they will start installing magnetic door sensors tomorrow, which immediately sparked opposition from many people. It started with one or two people asking for the reasons for the installation, and then more people joined the questioning. Here are the summarized reasons for everyone's opposition:

  1. Without any positive cases, it is unreasonable to install magnetic door sensors.
  2. We have to do nucleic acid tests and take out the garbage every day. Installing magnetic door sensors is meaningless, burdensome, and formalistic.
  3. After installing magnetic door sensors, it creates a sense of panic among people.

The community staff did not respond in a timely manner, but at this time, another group of people emerged and volunteered to explain:

  1. The epidemic prevention workers are already working hard enough, let's not make it difficult for them.
  2. Support the government's work, cooperate actively, and lift the lockdown as soon as possible, isn't that good?
  3. You feel depressed after staying at home for just a few days? Why not find something fun to do?

The two sides pulled back and forth, debating with a message volume of 99+ per minute.

But soon, no one mentioned whether to install magnetic door sensors, and I was puzzled... so I scrolled up and found that someone had jumped out and said, "Anyone up for a game of Clash of Kings?"

As a result, a group of game enthusiasts quickly gathered below. "Invite me," "Carry me in Clash of Kings," "Let's form a team," "If we lose, will you take responsibility for buying food," "Open the window and shout to the opposite building to team up,"... Soon, the debate about installing magnetic door sensors was drowned out.

Previously, I observed a method in the group to temporarily pause debates: let the debaters propose specific measures or suggest that they become the executor. The person who loves to speak up with opinions will fall silent, and then the debate will tend to disappear.

And this time, I observed some interesting phenomena:

  1. In a group with a lack of leadership and not many common interests, achieving a unified position is difficult (the residents in the neighborhood group are an example). The community staff's practice of releasing information and then "disappearing" is quite clever. Perhaps they knew that there would be residents opposing and they couldn't convince the opposition, but at the same time, they also knew that there would be residents stepping forward to explain, and the group would "digest" this issue on its own. However, it's possible that they simply didn't have time to explain and didn't think too much about it.
  2. Sometimes, debates don't necessarily require deep thinking to temporarily pause; shifting the focus is enough. For example, the person who jumped out to form a game team successfully shifted the debate about whether to install magnetic door sensors. It is valuable to oppose the installation of magnetic door sensors without any reason, and it's a pity that this debate was "aborted" in this way. However, the tactic of shifting the focus is indeed very effective, especially in some boring and ineffective debates. But, the premise is that the shifted topic has a mass base, such as games; otherwise, it will be drowned out in the debate.
Ownership of this post data is guaranteed by blockchain and smart contracts to the creator alone.