Reputation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Reputation''' is [[factionally defined]], that is, a [[faction]] must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low [[social capital]]. This is not something that [[Consumerium Services]] themselves can rely on very directly. Our [[trust model]] should have no direct relationship to this idea. | '''Reputation''' is [[factionally defined]], that is, a [[faction]] must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low [[social capital]]. This is not something that [[Consumerium Services]] themselves can rely on very directly. Our [[trust model]] should have no direct relationship to this idea. | ||
[[Troll]]s tend to believe that all reputation is bad, that having a "high" or "good" reputation just implies [[groupthink]] is in effect and that someone has taken advantage of it, and that it is more heroic to remain anonymous (but still traceable). | |||
Revision as of 19:16, 25 November 2003
Reputation is factionally defined, that is, a faction must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low social capital. This is not something that Consumerium Services themselves can rely on very directly. Our trust model should have no direct relationship to this idea.
Trolls tend to believe that all reputation is bad, that having a "high" or "good" reputation just implies groupthink is in effect and that someone has taken advantage of it, and that it is more heroic to remain anonymous (but still traceable).