Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re^3: Reputation and Accountability (system)

by chip (Curate)
on Jun 12, 2003 at 21:17 UTC ( #265504=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Reputation and Accountability (system)
in thread Reputation and Accountability

I fear I have confused two points. Allow me to distinguish them.

1. Being muted is, indeed, intrinsically annoying.

2. Being muted by someone who isn't willing to reveal his identity is infuriating. It's much worse, to me, than the non-anonymous variety, because it is an abuse of authority. It therefore provokes, not just irritation, but indignation.

Clearer?

    -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos


Comment on Re: Re^3: Reputation and Accountability (system)
Re^5: Reputation and Accountability (system)
by tye (Cardinal) on Jun 12, 2003 at 22:00 UTC

    I understood.

    I agree that being muted anonymously can be more aggrevating. I assert that it can also be less aggrevating. And I say this from experience on both sides.

    I've been in situations where the fact that the enforcement of some rule was done as a personal judgement by someone completely anonymous to me made me realize that authority was involved and so I should probably pick a different fight. I couldn't even "appeal" to the authority and sometimes that was a good thing. It even worked in this case based on the data I have (in that you kept swearing when asked non-anonymously but stopped when punished anonymously).

    I don't think it is a simple conclusion from "anonymous" to "abuse of power". It should be an exception. It is an exception. And when it becomes a problem, there are several different ways to deal with it.

    If every time someone talks to a disruptive users, the response is shouted back, then it is useful to have authorities that can hide behind a sham simply to deny the disruptive user someone to shout back at.

    As dws says, if they then decide to shout back at the site, then discussion happens and perhaps improvements are made (in the system, in the minds of those who run it, in who runs it, in the members or membership, whatever).

    I don't believe in applying systems (making things automatic) in cases that still require judgement. I think you'll agree that silencing should not be made automatic. I feel that whether to silence anonymously or non-anonymously should also not be made automatic (by disabling anonymous silencing).

                    - tye
      You've committed a classic blunder of science: Your experiment has no control. You don't know whether I would have reacted better if you had revealed your identity. Therefore you have no basis to assume that your hiding was more effective than the untried alternative.

      (update: I seem to have misapplied scientific principles here; see below. update ends)

      As for use vs. abuse -- with anonymity in place, any potential future abuse is harder to detect. This is a simple fact, to which your particular action's being (ab)useful has no particular relevance.

      I do, nevertheless, wonder if you realize just how Machiavellian your reasoning is.

          -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos

        chip some experiments simply can't be run in a controled fashion. Running an experiment without all explicit controls doesn't make it a "blunder" or bad science! You can't do most toxicology testing, drug rehabilitation program testing with controls that are remotely complete for ethical reasons. Cosmology is better: we only have one universe to test!

        The general solution is probabilistic arguments: I see thing x happen a lot more than thing y, so probably thing x happens more than thing y. And, if thing x and thing y are distributed in some particular fashion (normal, extreme value, chi-squared, whatever) the chance of this excess of x over y being random is p=n (or n/100% if you prefer).

        You can't discard his argument because it isn't based on a controled case-study! It's based on his general experience of human interactions, and does have some validity too, I think.

        -Tats

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://265504]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-09-03 04:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (35 votes), past polls