Tim wrote:
A lot of the current/recent reputation schemes make a fundamental
mistake: they attempt to assign a scalar value to the [emphasis]
reputation of an actor. Even the schemes which attempt to assign a
vector rating, e.g, Declan' s rating of Detweiler is..., Tim's rating
of Detweiler
All these mental efforts are not cost effective. Tens of people spending
hours on filtering/rating schemes is expensive.
Choate's whereabouts are well known, deploying persuasion contractors will
cost a fraction of the proposed engineering efforts.
Think of it as of simulation run of AP.
To wit, no two people can safely tell the same lie to the same person.
Choate:
Actually they can, only one (or both, if we allow 3 or more agents, only
one is required to 'know' the lie) of the people must believe it is the
truth.
Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aimee wrote:
To wit, no two people can safely tell the same lie to the same person.
Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is, who's being lied to, and how
confident and artistic the confidence artists are.
Choate:
Actually they can,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- ... the mailing list
simply records # of posts written by each poster. call
this P
- mailing list records # of times someone wrote
a post that was replied to. ... call this R
- pseudoreputation is a measure of the above two
parameters. one can
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:45:20PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- posts to the list are like currency. lurkers
Not a useful analogy. For some people, the more they post, the
lower their reputation falls.
- mailing list records # of times someone wrote
a post that was replied to. posts
On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 12:30 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:45:20PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- posts to the list are like currency. lurkers
Not a useful analogy. For some people, the more they post, the
lower their reputation falls.
A lot of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Declan wrote:
There may be the germ of an idea here, but I'm hardly convinced an
automated mechanism such as you describe will work.
Even if it did, getting people focused on improving their popularity ratings
rather than contributing ideas is
ahem, yes I am aware any simple system is easily
circumvented defeated, but that doesnt imply
that it will be.
Ive noticed many objections to any new proposal often
take the form, but that would be different
than what we have now!!! wow, amazing, no kidding!!!
I can come up with all kinds of
All these mental efforts are not cost effective. Tens of people spending hours on
filtering/rating schemes is expensive.
Choate's whereabouts are well known, deploying persuasion contractors will cost a
fraction of the proposed engineering efforts.
Think of it as of simulation run of AP.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ahem, yes I am aware any simple system is easily
circumvented defeated, but that doesnt imply
that it will be.
Ive noticed many objections to any new proposal often
take the form, but that would be different
than what we have now!!! wow,
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Adam Back wrote:
Are there people who already read cpunks regularly via the web?
(Reading email and mailing-lists via the web always seemed clunky to
me, even on broadband, but there are apparently vast numbers of people
who use only web-email by preference, and to
On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 05:31 PM, Graham Lally wrote:
Adam Back wrote:
Apart from my recent comments about NoCeM's and on onspool NoCeM
reader, another perhaps simpler idea would be to do it all with simple
CGI stuff and a web archive. I'm sure this has been discussed before
in
hi guys, thanks for the feedback.
I have in mind a system that would work from
a few factors, with minimal intervention.
I specifically think that a
system of appointed moderators is **not**
an ideal solution for a bazillion reasons.
that is precisely what I have not in mind.
the whole
14 matches
Mail list logo
