I'm just a lurker on this list, trying to pick up on what's happening in this subset of computing and communications, but my chain's been yanked, and the subject merits a reply. On the matter of the discussion that's been going on vis-a-vis reputations versus kill files, I'm afraid we're regressing to the bad old days when everyone was considered bad and worthy of suspicion until they demonstrated that they were good and trustworthy. I'd personally rather believe people are basically good than otherwise. Even if I must occasionally suffer getting burned, it's easier on the nerves, attitude, and karma to assume the best in those I interact with. I think it's significant that there are really so few of us on the net who are actually insufferable and refuse to be shouted down to reasonable behavior by the civil rest of us. Those few who are will not be prevented from troubling us by the measures being advocated - positive reps, scores on 1-to-10 scales, etc. - any more than weapon makers are deterred by manufacturers of armor. someone who really wanted to could still flood our group with vitriol, using multiple artificial identities vouched for by other artificial identities. If such neurotic vengeful behavior were really likely on the net, we'd have seen it already. What, other than good sense and a low threshold of boredom, prevents any of us from flooding any and all news groups with garbage? And if it ever becomes a problem, we'll just have to appoint a moderator, perhaps on a rotating basis, from among those of us who are personally acquainted with each other. My point here isn't that we shouldn't prepare for the worst, but that we shouldn't get crazy about it. The theoretical aspects of the discussion are interesting to me, but I just thought it was getting a little close to the edge not to comment. Tom DeBoni (Once I figure this stuff all out, I'll get a "protected" identity, too.) deboni@llnl.gov
it's easier on the nerves, attitude, and karma to assume the best in those I interact with.
But you can not interact with everyone that that has the technical means to post a message. If you can now, somehow, (you can't do much else if you want to keep up with 50MB per day), then in the near future you will not be able to. So, you need a way to pick who to interact with.
I think it's significant that there are really so few of us on the net who are actually insufferable and refuse to be shouted down to reasonable behavior by the civil rest of us. Those few who are will
If you are referring to the current state of the UseNet, then I suggest that you keep in mind that until fairly recently the access was mostly limited to people in universities, and research departments of hi-tech corporations. This is a highly selected group of people, and can not be compared to the "general public". As communications technology becomes cheaper, more widespread and accessible to anyone that wants to, and eventually ubiquitous like the telephone is now, the number of people that will be able to "interact" will be much greater. In general, I view this as a good thing. Unfortunately, the ratio of people that I would find _interesting_ or _usefule_ to "talk" to in relation to the total number of people I _can_ talk to will decrease dramatically.
not be prevented from troubling us by the measures being advocated - positive reps, scores on 1-to-10 scales, etc. - any more than weapon makers are deterred by manufacturers of armor. someone who really wanted to could still
I don't think anyone intends to use reputation systems to prevent someone from posting a message, instead as a means to easily filter the messages you personally want to read. Or maybe even not filter, but as some suggested, _sort_. So you would first read (and reply to) the messages of people with a higher reputation for writing informative articles, or participating in interesting discussions. To some extent, this already is already occurring. If there are some people that you remember from the past as interesting people to talk to, you are more likely to read their messages. An automated system would let you benefit from other peoples' memories.
groups with garbage? And if it ever becomes a problem, we'll just have to appoint a moderator, perhaps on a rotating basis, from among those of us who
Think of a reputation system as being a distributed moderator. -- Yanek Martinson mthvax.cs.miami.edu!safe0!yanek uunet!medexam!yanek this address preferred -->> yanek@novavax.nova.edu <<-- this address preferred Phone (305) 765-6300 daytime FAX: (305) 765-6708 1321 N 65 Way/Hollywood (305) 963-1931 evenings (305) 981-9812 Florida, 33024-5819
i should think that a middle ground would be suitable, in which people keep a hot list and an "other" list, with perhaps a kill list as well. peter
participants (3)
-
deboni＠diego.llnl.gov -
peter honeyman -
yanek＠novavax.nova.edu