From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:02:59 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan" <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
> > 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
eyes,
> maybe worth carrying the coaster afterwards. It's kind of like saying I
can
> 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
rich.
> > 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
> pamphlets.
>
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
Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:10:59 MDT