From: Mark Walker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:02:59 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan" <email@example.com>
> > The problem is that it is too easy to "bias" the rating -- I
> > can be "good"
> > for a decade with the intent of getting a high "angelic"
> > rating and then coast
> > on it.
> A decade of "goodness" is probably a significant gain in many people's
> maybe worth carrying the coaster afterwards. It's kind of like saying I
> work hard for a decade and get rich, then retire.
Indeed, if one could build up enough "good deed" capital in a decade then
why not allow them to coast. The good deeds are averaged over a lifetime so
one would have to amass quite a fortune of good deed capital but in
principle there is no reason why it shouldn't be done. As you say, retire
> > For the first few years (when "natural" behaviors) were in effect yes.
> > But as soon as people figured out how to milk the system the "ratings"
> > would be of questionable value.
> This is where you need a free market effect to step in; if one system of
> ratings sucks, then others should crop up; the good, bad and ugly. May the
> best system win, until it loses to another one. Personally, I think no-one
> could effectively judge the long term effects of each candidate system, so
> the choice would come down to all the usual crap that we choose from;
> credibility of the system purveyors, market penetration, glossiness of the
Yes, some market choice should help weed-out the worst systems. I think the
perceived fairness of the system and its ability to detect cheats would be
big factors in the system's survival in such a market.
Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:10:59 MDT