Reputation System

There are two basic types of people in SL: Producers and Consumers.

Producers are builders, scripters, clothiers, and so on, people that make 'stuff'.

Consumers are the folks that purchase the 'stuff'.

A ton of consumers, because they don't produce any 'stuff', have no income aside from their stipend. If they didn't have a stipend, they wouldn't have any spending cash.

If they didn't have any spending cash, the producers would eventually get all the money, because a producer, if he needs something, will just make it himself.

Or, worse yet, the producers wouldn't get ANY money, because their clientele doesn't have any money either.. the economy locks up, and we're all stuck with nothing.

LF

Absolutely! you just can't force everyone to 'get a job'. That's so NOT what a lot of people came for. I would say the majority of my friends don't do anything that earn them any money, and have no interest in doing so. And why should they? This isnt The Sims, ya know... and thank <insert your deity here> for that!

These points could be debated endlessley but this isn't the reason we're here. I stated at the end of the post the stipend is fine and should be raised. Ratings however have to go especially because they are linked to bonuses.

Kris is quite correct when she said "this isn't the Sims"

except for the ratings system part...

I don't have and don't give negative ratings but the concept sucks. At one point a couple of months ago, before there was a limit to number of alt accounts I thought of making a bunch of alt accounts named MadNegRater1 to MadNegRater20 and posting something like this.

Hi, I am the mad neg rater. If you're a landowner between Tehama and Shipley beware. I don't like that strip of land.

Then proceed to give 60 neg ratings to every owner of land between Tehama and Shipley. The idea was to give neg ratings in such a large and arbitrary but clear way that it destroyed the negative rating system.

I wrote the Lindens asking if it was within the tos. They said that while technically it could be considered within the tos that it violated the (paraphrase) be nice to your neighbors clause. Probably just as well. It would have been fun if I had managed to destroy all meaning to neg ratings though.

I don't think many are arguing to get rid of the stipend entirely. The argument is against ratings adding to the stipend. Lots of people have bonuses they don't really deserve, simply because they were good at rate-mining. That doesn't seem fair to the people that actually are creating great things for SL but perhaps don't get out to parties as much.

I think there ought to be a base stipend everyone gets - think of it as the "welfare" level. LL can figure out what this should be. Just enough to get by, have some fun, and buy a few things. If people want more than that they have to earn it. Participate in contests, host events, make stuff, provide a service, whatever. The business owners, producers, and creators will always have the most money. People can't expect to be on that level by doing nothing.

And its actually possible to have a lot of fun in SL without much money at all. There's a lot of free stuff, and socializing / exploring doesn't cost anything. Personally, I can't remember the last time I spent more than L$500 in a week.

I'm pretty happy with the rating system. The fact that there is an incentive to rate people encourages people to do so. If there was no indirect incentive to rate then people generaly wouldn't and the only people who would would be the people who didn't like you. What i would like to see is added to the rating box a few more feilds that there is no incentive associated with them.
If it were reworked so that only one of the rating feilds effected stipend and the others didn't that would be ok too.



To the suggestion of associating dwell with reputation i'm totaly against that. I don't own land. While it might be interesting to have it displayed along side i don't think it should be part of.

Strife, do you have an argument for the ability to give permanent and arbitrary negatives? I.e., should "flyby negatives" still remain possible?

I still haven't heard a solid argument for this capability.

A little bit of the breakdown as to why negs aren't the "yang" to the positive "yin":

People who don't care about negatives -- and people who don't care about their reputation -- are the ones who tend to give out arbitrary negs. They don't care what their "given" says, and don't care what their negative column reads.

People who DO care about their reputation, are the ones directly affected by arbitrary negs.

(Note, I say arbitrary because I firmly believe that MOST negatives given are indeed arbitrary and not honest. They are, for the most part, given as emotional reactions with no action of reason, and only an intent to strike back at the target.)

So essentially you have a power balance where those who don't give a rat's ass about how they're percieved hold power over those who DO care how they are percieved.

The ratings system is supposed to enforce or encourage positive behavior via threat of reputation damage. In fact, it does the opposite. Those who try to do "good" and maintain a "clean record" are at the whim of those who don't give a damn about their record.

Every argument I've seen for, "I like the ratings system as it is" is usually followed by, "It gives me money." - That's a great end, as to why you want it to remain the same, but it isn't a REASON why the ratings system WORKS. It simply states that people gain from it monetarily. There are other ways to make money. And I'm reasonably sure that if LL removed the ratings stipend bonus, it would be replaced with something that was at least as easily accessible.

My main argument is that it is arbitrary, permanent, and nontransactional. No reason is needed, you don't even have to meet the person you're rating, and it can NEVER, EVER go away.

I ask again: Why should you be allowed to permanently mark someone you've never met in areas of behavior and appearance, just because you've found one of their objects?

Why should you be able to permanently mark someone standing in an empty field, whose builds you've never seen, in the area of building?

I seriously want to hear an argument by those who support leaving the ratings system absolutely unchanged -- as to why a person, in his first hour online, should be able to negative-rate a person on appearance and behavior, permanently, after finding a prim that the offline person forgot to delete in a sandbox.

Whether you "like" the system or not, whether it gets you money or not, I think anyone will be hard pressed to explain (without cynicism and rhetoric) why the above scenario should be allowed to happen.

The ratings system is having a chilling effect on social interaction. For example, as a Mentor, we're supposed to hold one event a month - usually for new users. Why should we be forced to put ourself in such risk of permanent reputation damage? It discourages people to go out and "meet and greet", it discourages exploration, because if your shirt is cut at the wrong angle, you may get negged. If the other person has had too much coffee, you may get negged. If someone doesn't like the way the lighting system is lighting you, you may get negged.

"People who care about getting negative ratings are stupid" is not a valid argument either, because the very people who are saying that the system must stay the same, are those who hold dear the bonus given by their ratings --- which is lessened by negatives! So you either care, or you don't. Also, the system is open to interpretation. You may not think it's a big deal, but to another person, -30 -30 -30 may seriously change someone's opinion.

It's a freeform reputation system, based on arbitrary opinion, with absolute (stipend) and irreparable results. And that is a serious flaw.

yeah i concur with michi. Basically the system as it is simply serves to hurt the people who really care about SL. And reward those who simply wish to exploit it.

Theres obviously a few more shades of grey than that, but thats more or less an accurate summation of how the ratings system in SL is currently being 'used' as it were.

sure its a 'social' problem in some sense but since the ratings system is designed to lay out the basis for the games social structure, its the systems *JOB* to account for the problem in a way that is the most beneficial, or least hurtful... and the system is falling far short.

Bob: Man, you suck at tennis!

Ed: Huh?

Bob: You didn't return ANY of my serves, and the only reason you won any games at all was I was laughing so hard at how bad you were that I double faulted an entire set.

Ed: What are you talking about?

Bob: You know, our tennis match over the weekend!

Ed: I was out of town on a business trip over the weekend.

Bob: You snooze, you lose!

Ed: Uh, yeah, whatever you say Bob.

---

That's what I think about the rating system. As long as I can ignore it, and it makes some people feel good about themselves, it's fine with me. It would probably be a more interesting "game" if players could opt-in to it and we actually knew that everyone in it was participating. As a basis for SL in general though it's bad. Go over to Orkut and look at the complexity of the rating system over there. It's very popular in Brazil I hear. It's also very slow, and as far as information content... I just haven't found much information there at all.

I haven't been in world long enough to really have developed an opinion. However, I have read these message boards enough to realize that there are quite a few people terrorizing other people in Second Life. Because the reputation is linked to the stipend, I suggest keeping it. (Don't everyone rate me bad now, I've got a good idea.)


What idea I'm going to start talking to people about is forming a coalition to thwart evildoers in SL. Not like superheroes or anything stupid like that. Rather I suggest that people band together and come up with their own decency guidelines for how people in SL should act. Then if someone gets assaulted the group can collectively negative rate the wrong-doer thereby lowering his/her stipend. I haven't worked out all the details yet, but they're quickly forming in my head. Wouldn't it be great if people rated negatively were actually forced to pay more to play the game (i.e. their negative ratings went through the roof making their stipend negative)?

IM me if you're interested in forming this self-governed coalition.

Sincerely,

Rock Psaltery

The problem with this is, Rock, would be, "what is good, what is bad" - is "unpopular" bad? is bad "against TOS"? It'd be really tough to define fairly.

And, once again, it'd be permanent and, in a way, probably a violation of TOS in itself. (Re: the TOS section on using ratings.)

Self/resident governance has been an idea put forth, but so far it's been mostly universally panned.

I still don't think that the simple fact that ratings and stipend are linked is a valid enough reason to keep the system. There's nothing saying that what people would lose in stipend via losing the ratings system couldn't be replaced by other means.

The subject of this thread isn't taking away peoples' stipends, it's reforming the ratings system. The two really are exclusive to eachother. The stipend issue can, and most likely will, be remedied even if the ratings system changes or goes.

But still, that's the only real objection I've heard so far: "I'd get less money" - which is not neccessarily a truism.

How about turning on someone's ability to rate others after they have been in SL for a month? This would A) give people time to develop an appreciation of what they are rating and the system as a whole, and B) lessen the urge to make an alt account just to neg rate others.
I also really like the idea of ratings going away if someone quits playing.

i see your point about negative ratings. Why not break the rating system down a bit.

So that ratings are displayed in two catagories. Total and in the last month.

I like the idea of not being able to not rate someone for the first month but i would like to twist that a bit; make it so you can't neg rate someone for the first 36 hours of game time and 7 days in the game (ie you have to have been logged in and active for 36 hours and be older then 7 days).

But for negative ratings i would like to be able to review them at some later date (without having to find the person). There was a time when i gave a guy a neg behavior rating. I know he learned his lesson, but i can't remember who it was so i can't revoke the neg rating.

Maybe make the rating system weighted?
So that the effect of a negative rating is proportional to your negative rating and how many you have given out. And also proportional to how old you are. So that a noob rating won't be worth much. It would also help curb whoring by hanging out with noobs.

The problem though is that the ratings system is completely arbitrary.

One person's +1 is another person's +13. One person's -1 is another person's -1000.

You're attaching human emotions to simple numbers, and that never, ever works.

If you weight the system, that's just going to make it worse... if it's dependent on your negative ratings, there will be a SCORE of negative rate attacks against someone, to basically bounce them out of the system. And it still doesn't solve the problem of rate parties.

There is no good reason, none, to keep the ratings system as it is.

LF

I think Lordfly's idea is the ultimate fix for the ratings. Awards would be really fun but they don't fit as a replacement to rate.

"The problem with this is, Rock, would be, "what is good, what is bad" - is "unpopular" bad? is bad "against TOS"? It'd be really tough to define fairly."

Well sure, most morality is subjective. However, we have have laws none-the-less. I really, honestly think that is a non-issue, because the guidelines for what is unacceptable behavior would be chosen by the coalition of people. Very much like a constitution.

"Self/resident governance has been an idea put forth, but so far it's been mostly universally panned."

I'm too new to know about this, so I don't know the arguments against. Probably something to the effect that wars would start between rival factions. But if the people enforcing decent standards have more unity and numbers than those who are trying to disrupt play, then what's the problem? Are the people out to make SL less fun going to rise up and aggressively recruit? If you think they are, what makes you think they're not already?

"I still don't think that the simple fact that ratings and stipend are linked is a valid enough reason to keep the system. There's nothing saying that what people would lose in stipend via losing the ratings system couldn't be replaced by other means."

The fact that their loss of money may not affect them is true, but that also means that they've been here awhile and established some roots. Do most of the troublemakers fall into this category? Also, if there is a group of banded troublemakers, this is limit their collective purchasing power.

"The subject of this thread isn't taking away peoples' stipends, it's reforming the ratings system. The two really are exclusive to eachother. The stipend issue can, and most likely will, be remedied even if the ratings system changes or goes. "

The two aren't exclusive of one another right now, and that's cool. How would the stipend issue be solved by removing the ratings system from it? We all get the same amount regardless of how we act and treat one another? The Lindens are making a point out of having the stipend attached to the ratings, and I think for most the point is well received.

My only issue with the rating system is that it doesn't reset after you rate someone. Sometimes I want to rate someone positively in the same area again, and I can't.

I'm no expert on these things but I think that the negetive ratings should be dropped. If someone is griefing isn't it enough that we can report it and they get their punishment doled out via suspension?
The negetive ratings are sometimes used unfairly by people. I know because its happened to me. My neg ratings are because someone didn't like that I raised my land and got their friends to come over and 1) shoot me repeatedly and 2) rate me negetive.

I had -3 behavior rating until about 2 weeks ago (which isn't bad considering my large mouth and that I've been playing for so long), when two new players went through a sim I was in With Pituca and rated both of us negatively in all categories and shot us with guns.

A particular linden immediately stopped them and they haven't been in world since.
However their handy work, now -5, looks a lot different than a -3, and it should either be removed since it was unjustified, (as were the other 50+ negative ratings they gave in that hour to other hapless unsuspecting victims) or the ratings system needs to go. It's too prone to abuse with no recourse for the victims.

And an idea for a 10 favorite people would get the point across just as well and do away with this outdated methodology for assigning preference to people.

Crow

I think if a user is perm banned all ratings they gave should be expunged from the system.

This issue is more complicated then just assigning values to emotions. It encompasses how to punish people. So the question should be. Does punishing some people wrongly out weigh punishing people who deserve it?

no one has yet commented on the idea of restricting when you can first neg rate.

I see that in life you make enemies. It can't be helped. So i see it as reasonable that if you have been around a long time that you will have accumulated some negative ratings. So when i look at someone's profile i take that into consideration.

Another idea: weight negative ratings by week. So that if someone is doing a flyby by the time they are done all the people they have rated neg have only taken a very small hit. This method reduces wrongful punishment.

"Another idea: weight negative ratings by week. So that if someone is doing a flyby by the time they are done all the people they have rated neg have only taken a very small hit. This method reduces wrongful punishment."

This is a good idea, but to take it further how about limiting the amount of times a person can neg rate in a day. That or track the constant neg raters. Those who neg rate the most get the boot.

What do you think?


Oh, or even better yet - If a person negative rates 10 times in a row without giving a positive rating all 10 negativel ratings get nullified.

Rock:
I like the idea of nulification but i think it's to easy to get around.

=> If Linden Lab wants socialization and communicative networking to
=> happen ... LL is going to have to realize that you cannot quantize or
=> digitize reputation.

I think the rating PROCESS serves to encourage socialization. Not the ratings themselves, but the act of giving out the rating. As a newbie, I rated people with creative clothing and attachments (I thought they had all made them on their own) and guess what? They came over and started talking to me! So in that respect, the ratings met one of their game goals.

And yes, I give out appearance ratings freely. I never look at anyone else's ratings.

Build ratings do mean something to me. Even if they had cost L$50, I would have given out nearly all of the build ratings I've given so far. A few less if they had cost L$100.

=> There is NO MECHANISM IN PLACE AS A RECOURSE TO ABUSE OF THE RATINGS
=> SYSTEM. The Lindens almost SUPPORT arbitrary use of their seemingly
=> sacred ratings system.

What would happen if a few hundred of us Neg'd all of the Lindens?

=> I think there ought to be a base stipend everyone gets - think of it
=> as the "welfare" level. LL can figure out what this should be.

First, I'm sure LLabs has a way to measure the total L$ that exchange hands every day. During a slow week/month they can hand out extra L$. (What's their method for removing excess L$ from the system?)

Second, I was put off when I realized the amount of money I'd earned from my ratings was of the same order of magnitude as my base stipend. What the hey, I paid real money for one! The ratings bonus should be some insignificant, token amount, far less than the base stipend (or welfare amount).

there is much discussion about fixing the rating system, which is good. but there many crosspurpose threads going on.

1) is the rating system to let people know who to trust/mistrust?

it does have that effect to some extent. someone who given 90 positive ratings and 45 negative ratings looks suspicious.

2) is it to let people who know can or cannot build?

i remember a comment about someone in the top 10 list of builds who couldn't link two prims. now mind, i don't know or believe that's trues, but i do know some people who have a couple hundred build ratings who can't do what i consider basic building.

3) is it to reward people l-monitarily for being nice, looking cool, and building cool stuff?

i think that's in there somewhere, and i think it should have that function, but tying l$ to the rating system means that it will be gamed, no matter what.

4) is it supposed to make people feel good (or bad)?

whether or not it's supposed to do that, it certainly has that net effect.

* * *

ll has a vested interest in making people interact, be nice, look cool, and build awesome things. that is why ratings and dwell exists - economically speaking one subsidizes what one likes, and taxes what one doesn't like (or must limit for other reasons).

however, the residents of sl have don't necessarily share that need, the sl needs to be fun and fair, and the rating and dwell are sometimes (possibly often) unfair in some way, which makes it no fun. and ll knows this is a problem, or they wouldn't be asking us to help solve the problem.

* * *

but before y'all go trying agree on a solution (or getting others to agree), try to pin down the problem.

* * *

personally, i think the current system is good enough. it gets 80% of the work done for 20% of the effort needed to get 100% of the work done.

people with the best and worst reputations are clearly marked. both by the rating system, and by the society of sl at large. the un-automatied, natural system of social interaction marks the stars and pariahs pretty well.

There's a simple solution on making ratings work:

no more negative ratings.
no more L$ earned for good ratings.


that's it. the end. all fixed.

no more neg bombing, no more rate mining.

we'll have to come up with alternative way to earn more money via our involvement in SL, socially or otherwise.

and to be fair, we would need the ability to change our rating to a neutral.. for those times when someone has received a positive rating from ourself, then done something to change our mind about said rating.
for example, you meet someone, they're nice.. so you give them a positive Behaviour rating. minutes/hours/weeks/whatever later, they come along and curse you out and throw hairy pasture patties at your head.. well, you would then change the rating you had given them to a neutral. they lose face and the worst they can do is rate you neutrally and only if they had previously rating you positively.

All other suggestions aside (and there are both good and bad ones)-

Ebay was mentioned - I think Ebay has a good rating system. Two things it does right:
- Older ratings go away.
- People leave comments as to why they rate.

Granted from a programmer's perspective, this isn't necessarily a 10-minute addition, and the latter suggestion requires a larger footprint of disk space (though you could limit it to 255 characters or something to help).

However, as I think the feedback you folks have received, improving the rating system is needed.