From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 14:12:23 MDT
Joe Said:
>According to the peer rating system, Hermit is one of the most highly
>respected members of the community, although, considering his
>actions, I have a hard time figuring out why. Does anyone actually
>believe that he would use such a system honestly with respect to
>myself, Bill Roh, or anyone who dares to disagree with him?
>There may be no better system available, but that does not entail that
>the present one profferred is any good. As long as political prejudices,
>personal biases and emotions, which are inextricably human
>components, are factored into peer ratings, they will be less than fair
>and objective, and I see no way around this.
>
I have to agree with Joe. There is no possible way that Hermit or his
Hermitites are going to even make an attempt of honesty in this regard.
The notion makes me throw my head back in laughter - having witnessed
the ugly underneath first hand. Anyone who dares to research Hermit's
posts, will find them rife with dishonesty and obfuscation. It is the
nature of the beast. Hermit's stated goal, according to the Notice and
proposal thread explicitly state that Hermit has a political goal for
the CoV, and any attempt on the part of the members to keep him from
taking us into the political arena means effectively that they will be
continuosly slandered - yet none research his slanders except for a very
few and so most remain quiet, waiting for Hermits poison pen to find
them. Remember the battle that happened here happened to prevent Hermit
from moderating or speaking for the rest of us - not to remove him from
the congregation. Contrary to Hermit's statements that we tried to "out"
him, which never happened except in his own head. Setting this
reputation system up, is simply coming up with a new way to put Hermit
back at the mouthpiece, be it deliberate or not, the result will be the
same.
That said - it looks interesting and I would rather see us experimenting
with it than not simply for curiosities sake.
As for making it better: A fair system would include objective
researchers. If a member was found after research to be engaging in
obfiscation or deception, these ratings would need to reflect that
prominently. Otherwise it's a popularity and manipulation contest in
disguise with no means of checking for legitimacy.
Reason - Vision - Empathy
Tools for a healthy mind
Bill Roh
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 14:10:37 MDT