From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 09:27:19 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Pseudonyms and Reputations
Message-ID: <9404071628.AA29114@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:  hfinney

"One possibility is a digital reputation system.  Presently people and
nyms develop informal reputations in the minds of their readers.  This
could be formalized by allowing readers to create endorsements of
various types for those who have worthwhile things to say. "

Could I really allow myself to be so prejudiced by what a number of 
others have determined is (or is not) a worthwhile contributor to a list?

My interest in reading a message has first to do with the subject of 
attention, then second the one who has something to say.  There are 
many types of commentary which someone could introduce at any time; 
sometimes in humor or sarcasm, sometimes with great insight, more or 
less successfully.  I think whoever attends to messages on a list 
should consider their motives -  whether they just want company, a 
sounding board, or whether they want to read about a particular subject 
of interest.

The opportunity to interact with others in abstract conversation is 
also the opportunity to develop and refine the ability to communicate, 
to improve upon the formulation of a thought and express it with 
greater ability.  I might not like the style or manner of what someone 
has said in the past, yet accept what they have to say some other time. 
  But this would be my own judgement at work, not a conclusion derived 
from the aggregate opinion of others.

I myself wouldn't pay excessive attention to a reputation system, 
outside of its entertainment value.

Blanc