positive reps and paranoia

[Tom DeBoni]

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 at llnl.gov