From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 22:56:16 MDT
A really good question.
Yes is the status quo. Being able to see everyones ratings. This has the upside that it allows people to establish the veracity of claims for support and even more significant, it provides the ability for newcomers to establish how much attention to pay to people. It also allows you to measure changing perceptions of your behaviour over time.
The down side is that it leads to continuous attempted (futile) manipulation of the pecking order*, and perhaps the temptation to form an orthodoxy where the words of the leadership are taken as being of more weight in matters unrelated to list (and board and IRC etc) protocol.
*As the number of "reputable" members increases, so the ability of any one member to alter the "pecking order" by fine tuning their voting decreases. The correct approach to such a system as we have implemented is to simply rate the people you are evaluating as honestly as you can. This will automatically create a list which reflects all the members of the "rateable" community's opinions.
No would hide all the ratings except your own. This would retain the feedback mechanism, but would lose the other benefits. However, it would also dispose of the issue of a pecking order.
So I think that you meant to vote "Yes".
Kind Regards
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29067> --- 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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 22:56:39 MDT