From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:53:16 +0800
To: gregburk@netcom.com (Greg Burk)
Subject: Re: Reputation in action
In-Reply-To: <7654f2dw3r@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199609152246.RAA17894@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Greg Burk wrote:

| Well, this looks like a chance to quickly correct some mistakes without
| spending a lot of time framing the issue.
| 
| tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
| > But this latest episode illustrates the role of reputations. Namely, my own
| > reputation is not being harmed by bizarre commentaries from the Vulis-bot.

| And it seems to me that your usage of "reputation" has at different
| times meant both direct and indirect exposure. This clearly discards
| important information, often to the detriment of your analysis. Perhaps
| you can explain why the two separate things are the same in some
| important way, aside from merely that they both involve esteem.

	A while back (Sept 94) I sketched out a system for using a
numeric indicator (from -1 through 1) as an indicator of how
interested (likely to read) you were in someone else's postings.  I
suggested that simple multiplication could achieve useful results.  If
I respect Alice 50% of the time, and Alice respects Bob 50% of the
time, then a rough cut at my interest level in Bob would be 25%.  If
Alice disrespects Charles 90% of the time, that gives him a negative
45% in my book.

	By generating simple numbers like this, I can tune my
tolerance level based on time.  Its not perfect, but roughly works.

	Deranged Mutant pointed out that radically different opinions
by a few people might cause the system to start behaving chaoticly,
and Hal also had some interesting comments.  Check the archives.

| > In the mathematics of reputations, a negative reputation held by one whose
| > own reputation is negative is a positive.
| 
| I don't think this is an example of any such thing. I would not respect
| a person even a tiny bit more just because a kook disrespects them. In
| fact, since the kooks frequently hold each other in very low esteem, the
| suggested polarity-math is self-contradictory.
| 
| Rather, I think this is an example of how direct exposure supercedes
| reputation.

	Kooks do mess things up a bit; but most people aren't kooks.
My enemies enemy is my friend is oft true.

	In the system I outlined, direct exposure clearly does
supercede reputation, except in the (possibly rare) case where you
respect someone else more than you respect yourself.

Adam

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume