positive reps and paranoia

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