virus: the repuation system
« on: 2003-08-19 04:55:13 »
[Jake2] The following is excerpted from the "re: Enough is enough" thread, with my responses in regard to the reputation system inserted as "[Jake2]":
[Jake Sapiens1]
The reputation system is valuable in that it finally provides a collective standardized measure of the feedback of almost all of the central figures who have been involved in building Church of Virus.
[metahuman1]
No, the reputation is not valuable. There is absolutely no good reason to have such a system in place. As for "central figures", the Church of Virus originally rejected the idea of centralism. re: FAQ Is the CoV a cult?
[Jake2] The reputation system ties into the voting mechanism to establish a way of easily and quickly identifying consensus within the community. I think it was a great idea for David to put such a thing in place. Indeed you obviously thought that it was a good enough idea as you voluntarily entered yourself into it. Now it appears you have changed your mind simply because you don't like the resulting evaluation that you have received.
[Jake Sapiens]
Whether or not Joe thinks it fair or not, one thing is certain, it does not lie. Another thing that does not lie is the list of the top 100 posters. After you discover that Joe Dees is consistently rated dead last in the reputation system, then I encourage you to check out the top one hundred in posting volume. It doesn't lie either. Here you will note that not only does Joe spew more than anybody else, he does so by many orders of magnitude. I urge each of you to start with the number 2 poster (Hermit) and start working your way down the list, adding each successive participants number of posts to the total. Now how long does it take for you to come up with a total that equals Joe's volume. I did this and discovered that Joe Dees' volume is more than the next 13 COMBINED!!! (sorry for the caps, but it simply couldn't be avoided. Now let's see who all is included in that 13. I will just limit this to people who have been around and are still around throughout most o!
f the reign of Joe Dees. Others have left since, and still others or relatively newer. But just to put some personalities into the mix, . . . Hermit, myself, David, Kharin, Walter, and Bill Roh.
[metahuman1]
Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. Quite frankly, the post count of any single user is of no interest to me. Unlike Hermit, I do not give respect to those with high post counts nor do I see them as more important, more right, or generally better human beings. Any Virian, or rather, MetaVirian, would do the same.
[Jake2] Before we had the reputation system, post count was the only tracking variable in CoV by which one could relatively evaluate the contributions of participants. The titles that people received were based on this. I agree with you that its relevance in this respect is questionable. The reputation system is much more relevant in that it measures not only a person's input, but also takes into account other people's evaluation of that person's input.
[Jake Sapiens1]
Joe feels himself so incredibly important, that apparently he thinks that he has more important things to say that all six of these people combined.
[metahuman1]
Apparently you like to bitch about the number of posts certain people make. Apparently Joe just likes to distribute information. That's certainly not a negative hit on him. . . .
[Jake2] I'm sure many career spammers, junk mailers, and telephone solicitors think of themselves as simply distributing information also.
[metahuman1] I enjoy his writings and I enjoy his presence. He's much more moderate than Hermit and would rather have people think for themselves than follow a dissolute leader.
[Jake Sapiens1]
We can even move afield from Church of the Virus and learn that Joe has also had to be moderated in other forums. The memetics list sponsored by the Journal of Memetics comes to mind, as well as at least one of the Extropy forums.
[metahuman1]
We can study my forum history as well. I've been banned from over 13 forums, suspended from 5, disrespected in 24 to the extent where I had to leave, and had my permissions removed in the last year.
[Jake2] Is this disclosure supposed to impress us? It certainly does nothing to persuade me that Joe should remain a member of this community. It does however explain to me why you seem to feel yourself in league with Joe, your constant kneejerk defense of him, and your flaming of anyone who criticizes his memebotic/spamming behavior, so thanks for sharing. Perhaps if you had shared this with us earlier I could have prophesied your results before you chose to join the CoV reputation system.
Re:virus: the repuation system
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-19 05:20:33 »
[Jake2] The following is excerpted from the "re: Enough is enough" thread, with my responses in regard to the reputation system inserted as "[Jake2]":
[Jake Sapiens1] The reputation system is valuable in that it finally provides a collective standardized measure of the feedback of almost all of the central figures who have been involved in building Church of Virus.
[metahuman1] No, the reputation is not valuable. There is absolutely no good reason to have such a system in place. As for "central figures", the Church of Virus originally rejected the idea of centralism. re: FAQ Is the CoV a cult?
[Jake2] The reputation system ties into the voting mechanism to establish a way of easily and quickly identifying consensus within the community. I think it was a great idea for David to put such a thing in place. Indeed you obviously thought that it was a good enough idea as you voluntarily entered yourself into it. Now it appears you have changed your mind simply because you don't like the resulting evaluation that you have received.
[metahuman2] I never supported the rating system. Lucifer told me to check it out and it AUTOMATICALLY entered me into the system. The only choice I in the matter was to ignore its presence and never see its design or open the URL. It's a flawed system because it is based on irrational opinions and selfish opinions. This approach to consensus is invalid. The appropriate method to determining the usefulness of an individual is for each member to rate the user's contributions not himself.
[Jake Sapiens1] Whether or not Joe thinks it fair or not, one thing is certain, it does not lie. Another thing that does not lie is the list of the top 100 posters. After you discover that Joe Dees is consistently rated dead last in the reputation system, then I encourage you to check out the top one hundred in posting volume. It doesn't lie either. Here you will note that not only does Joe spew more than anybody else, he does so by many orders of magnitude. I urge each of you to start with the number 2 poster (Hermit) and start working your way down the list, adding each successive participants number of posts to the total. Now how long does it take for you to come up with a total that equals Joe's volume. I did this and discovered that Joe Dees' volume is more than the next 13 COMBINED!!! (sorry for the caps, but it simply couldn't be avoided. Now let's see who all is included in that 13. I will just limit this to people who have been around and are still around throughout most o!
f the reign of Joe Dees. Others have left since, and still others or relatively newer. But just to put some personalities into the mix, . . . Hermit, myself, David, Kharin, Walter, and Bill Roh.
[metahuman1] Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. Quite frankly, the post count of any single user is of no interest to me. Unlike Hermit, I do not give respect to those with high post counts nor do I see them as more important, more right, or generally better human beings. Any Virian, or rather, MetaVirian, would do the same.
[Jake2] Before we had the reputation system, post count was the only tracking variable in CoV by which one could relatively evaluate the contributions of participants. The titles that people received were based on this. I agree with you that its relevance in this respect is questionable. The reputation system is much more relevant in that it measures not only a person's input, but also takes into account other people's evaluation of that person's input.
[metahuman2] Still, it is irrational and inappropriate. There isn't a need for a reputation system and stating that the number of posts was used to evaluate the contributiveness to the community shows that the empowered sect of the CoV does not know how to create effective and accurate judgements. Lucifer has asked me many times, "What would you recommend then?" My suggestion: no rating system whatsoever. Virians should not be rating other Virians in this manner. It's so fucking immature. All it does is support Hermit's Virianism (the disintegration of the oiriginal Virian philosophy, retrogression, and the inclusion of politics).
[Jake Sapiens1] Joe feels himself so incredibly important, that apparently he thinks that he has more important things to say that all six of these people combined.
[metahuman1] Apparently you like to bitch about the number of posts certain people make. Apparently Joe just likes to distribute information. That's certainly not a negative hit on him. . . .
[Jake2] I'm sure many career spammers, junk mailers, and telephone solicitors think of themselves as simply distributing information also.
[metahuman2] I'm sure many researchers, historians, and scientists of all fields consider themselves distributors of knowledge as well.
[metahuman1] I enjoy his writings and I enjoy his presence. He's much more moderate than Hermit and would rather have people think for themselves than follow a dissolute leader.
[Jake Sapiens1] We can even move afield from Church of the Virus and learn that Joe has also had to be moderated in other forums. The memetics list sponsored by the Journal of Memetics comes to mind, as well as at least one of the Extropy forums.
[metahuman1] We can study my forum history as well. I've been banned from over 13 forums, suspended from 5, disrespected in 24 to the extent where I had to leave, and had my permissions removed in the last year.
[Jake2] Is this disclosure supposed to impress us? It certainly does nothing to persuade me that Joe should remain a member of this community. It does however explain to me why you seem to feel yourself in league with Joe, your constant kneejerk defense of him, and your flaming of anyone who criticizes his memebotic/spamming behavior, so thanks for sharing. Perhaps if you had shared this with us earlier I could have prophesied your results before you chose to join the CoV reputation system.
[metahuman2] More unsupported assertions, exaggerations, and lies...
I may not agree with Joe Dees much of the time, but I will defend his right to communication. I defend him against you because you have provided nothing but your opinion. I defend him against Hermit because I am one of the few people who can see that everything Hermit does is to grant himself more power. I suppose you have no knowledge of power and how it is attained which is why you fall into the category of the "Followers of Hermit" who dedicate their minds to accepting "Hermit's Virianism", a faith-based initiative to propagate retrogressive memes with intent to decimate the Virian community and replace the original philosophies of the Church of Virus.
Re:virus: the repuation system
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-19 06:10:22 »
Metahuman, you miss the history... The rating system was established precisely because Joe Dees asserted that he was significant to the CoV because of his long history and voluminous posting record. Others took umbrage at this system of measurement.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:virus: the repuation system
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-19 06:14:47 »
*shrugs*
I have a self-enforced self-policy of "forgive and forget." Forgive if forgivable, forget if forgettable. However, before I accept this new information, I have to know what Joe Dees has to say about it.
> > Metahuman, you miss the history... > The rating system was established precisely because Joe Dees asserted > that he was significant to the CoV because of his long history and > voluminous posting record. Others took umbrage at this system of > measurement. > You took umbrage simply because you lacked the talent to produce as many posts that qualified as 'Best of Virus" as I did. In fact, you initially submitted many of my posts for that position, a fact that must exceedingly gall you now, and explains why I believe that you led (behind the list scenes) the lynch movement to trash my latest submission. If I had continued to agree with you, and be a good, submissive and obedient dittohead, I would still be your best buddy (a warning to anyone who now considers him/herself a Friend of Hermit but might entertain the thought of posting independent opinions that disagree with His Holy Writ). > > ---- > This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of > Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=29099> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
> > *shrugs* > > I have a self-enforced self-policy of "forgive and forget." Forgive if > forgivable, forget if forgettable. However, before I accept this new > information, I have to know what Joe Dees has to say about it. > When someone continually and indefatiguably repeats the same execrable behavior towards a second party, it makes it exceeedingly difficult for the second person to forget, much less forgive, as he is perpetually bombarded with the very offence he is being asked to forgive and forget. > ---- > This message was posted by metahuman to the Virus 2003 board on Church > of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=29099> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
RE: virus: the repuation system
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-19 15:15:55 »
Speaking for myself, I have never received any "behind the list" communication from Hermit or anyone else in this regard. Or in any other regard either for that matter. Hands up anyone who did?
> > Metahuman, you miss the history... > The rating system was established precisely because Joe Dees asserted > that he was significant to the CoV because of his long history and > voluminous posting record. Others took umbrage at this system of > measurement. > You took umbrage simply because you lacked the talent to produce as many posts that qualified as 'Best of Virus" as I did. In fact, you initially submitted many of my posts for that position, a fact that must exceedingly gall you now, and explains why I believe that you led (behind the list scenes) the lynch movement to trash my latest submission. If I had continued to agree with you, and be a good, submissive and obedient dittohead, I would still be your best buddy (a warning to anyone who now considers him/herself a Friend of Hermit but might entertain the thought of posting independent opinions that disagree with
RE: virus: the repuation system
« Reply #7 on: 2003-08-19 15:28:26 »
I can honestly say that I have only tried to convince others to vote me ruler. But I could not possibly be swayed away from my own ritual killings.
>Speaking for myself, I have never received any "behind the list" >communication from Hermit or anyone else in this regard. Or in any other >regard either for that matter. Hands up anyone who did? > >Blunderov
_________________________________________________________________ On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile
Author
Logged
More unsupported assertions, exaggerations, and lies...
