Reputation System

I agree with Gracie. Define what the ratings system is supposed to do first.

behavioral modification and enforcement?
generation of liquid assets for a group selected by "right" behavior? (what is right?)
adolescent popularity contest?
concrete indicator of an accepted moral and community persuasion?
etc.?

If you/we can define it and give it a purpose, then you/we can discuss the best approach. Yes, it's structuralism -- or functionalism, or structural functionalism, depending on the direction taken -- but it's a whole lot sweeter than social chaos and jerry-built inworld hierarchies.

Cybin, great idea I like it Perhaps initiating your idea would make a rating mean something. Thanx for the idea and I would support it

When I joined in September, the ratings system was explained as simply: Do things people like, get positive ratings, get more resources. Do things people don't like, get negative ratings, get fewer resources.

Of course, this was before 1.2 when your tax break, gained through rating bonus, determined how much land you could hold and how many prims you could have out. So basically the purpose of the ratings system is to let the community as a whole decide who should be getting the lion's share of the resources. In this system, when working properly, people should be free to give negative ratings for whatever reason they choose. And yes, "I don't like that" is a perfect valid reason. It's basically tallying the votes of the masses, how they feel on things. I think the limiting factor in the SL implementation is lack of fluidity. They're too static, so you get this "negative rating as punishment" idea when that shouldn't be the case. It goes back to what I mentioned earlier how it should be normal to have a mix of positive and negative ratings in all categories, and only the /extremely/ exceptional, or extremely new, should have no negatives.

However, after 1.2, none of this is true. Your share of resources is based solely on how many US$ you give LL each month. The L$ you get from rating bonus only serve as icing on the cake for a lot of people, or a way to get on their feet and get settled in the world for new users. Since the original purpose of ratings, resource distribution, no longer holds, it should be thought of in the reputational sense. Again, I think the system is sound and simple, but needs to have much needed fluidity added to it. Ratings change with opinions and all.

I thus propose a neural interface that sucks our feelings directly from the brain, without any conscious involement. This should be in 1.5. ;)

as sl has gotten larger, it has become more anonymous. that is simply a function of size.

but the result of that anonymity has an increase in incivility. the more anonymous a person is the less connection and regard that person may have with other people. and that can lead to decrease in the civility that makes social interactions run smoothly.

a comment based system might reduce the anonymity because people would have other social opinion about a person from other people.

while such a system will allow for some rather negative things to be attached to a person, these negative comments usually say more about the person making the comment than the person receiving the comment.

to that end it would be good also be able to see what comments a person has made, and not just received.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is why are alternative accounts that have given -20, -40, -60 ratings and no positive ratings still permitted access to LL if these accounts have crossed the line with the CS or TOS.

No matter what system is put into place, someone will find a way to work around the primary intent.

As part of the "clean-up" of the rating system, remove these alt accounts from the system. They are only being used to reduce the weekly payout and overall stipend of the players; they are in violation of the CS and the TOS, so why not penalize those who have abuse the system?

One way to put in a ratings system of any sort effectively into place is to enforce the violations of that system. Why should the person getting the neg rating be the only person to be penalized when it's evident that the neg rating giver is also abusing the system as it was designed?

Enforcement of any system will stop those from using it the way it wasn't designed to be used.

So please build into the new system an enforcement of "terminated account" if that account is found to be abusing the system the way that it wasn't meant to be used.

I think the ratings system could be immeasurably improved by doing just two things:-

1. Removing negative ratings.

2. Allowing no more than 5 positive ratings in any one day.

I agree with this completely Lynn. I wouldn't want to restrict anyone's ability to have alt accounts (I might get one myself just to be able to have some time in SL free of business again). Maybe a possible solution would be to cap the percentage of negs anyone can give relative to the number of positives they've given. Personally I think negs should just be removed completely. They've never been used as they were intended, people take them very personally, and their one of the main tools of griefers.

I don't have any brilliant ideas for a new reputation system, but whatever is come up with I hope it ends up being more than simply a measure of how social a person is and how many parties they've been to.

I'd like to see ratings for building be impossible to give by any other means than clicking on someone's build..

Indeed I don't understand why it seems that ratings are untouchable.

The TOS certainly states that the ratings system may NOT be used for harrassment - but as far as I know, Lindens HAVE never, and WILL never remove a negative rating, under any circumstances.

In addition to my complaints (permanent, arbitrary and nontransactional) - ratings also seem to be "vague yet sacred" - nobody knows exactly how much they mean, but in-world, they seem to be held in rather high regard from the administration.

I also think that LL should get a move on this change. We're sitting here waiting to see what the ratings system is going to change into (if anything) - and meanwhile, I feel we should be EXTRA careful before the transition, because any negatives may be permanently transformed into a different measurement with a more weighty meaning. (In other words, who knows what's going to happen.)

But as is the LL way, residents are to be kept in the dark. I still don't understand this policy, and I don't understand why LL insists on not sharing their plans or ideas with the residents that they will be effecting.

Must be a Real thing. (shrug)

Ok, my 2 cents... I guess.

Debate. Rating system can be exploited.
Counter. So can scripted item... and they can be to a more annoying level.

Debate. Serves no purpose. (They do to some.)
Counter. A lot of things serve no purpose. (Which also do to some.) And they do serve a purpose for me personally. If I see someone with mundo neg. ratings I take in consideration that they may not take ME in to consideration. I do not run and scream, I simply become a little more observant of their actions. A high score of positive ratings and a young b-day makes me think that 1. they might be really nice, or social, or a quick learner, or etc. 2. also to watch their actions because they may be the type to disregard what a "peon" like myself may think. A person with an older age and a high rating (which is most I have seen) keys me in that if I have a problem I might hit them up with a "Sorry to bother you, but ____?". All of these aren't main emotions or my feelings towards these people, because you CAN'T do that with a rating system... except for your own mind. But when used right the system we have may be able to give you a tad bit of foresight

Debate. The whole rate-LEADERS system is competitive.
Counter. Yeah...... and? So is opening certain places. If we rid ourselves from competition, there would be less goals.. and if there were less goals this would basically turn in to a glorified chatroom. If you do not feel like being competitive in that department, then by all means don't click the button.

Debate. Negs can be abused.
Counter. They can also be a way of easing your mind after someone has knocked you back 4 sims, and you flew back to your item in the sandbox, ignored them, knocked back again, flew back, asked them to stop, and knocked back again (repeat as many times as you need). I know for one that I'm not going to report PVP abuse every time it happens, I reported abuse once, and I regret doing so. It wastes the Linden's time when a neg rating has proven to get the job done better and more quickly for me.
Change Required? YES.
Mass Neg Ratings are a complete outright abuse that could be prevented. A system in which you reported it, and the Lindens checked in to it more deeply, and offenders were punished, it would be fixed as best as it could (not sure if they already do that.)

Debate. I would rather rate someone after talking to them a bit, and getting to know them than just click a box.
Counter. ? Then by all means do so. Humans have the ability to remember names. You can store your own mental rating of them, and maybe even complement them too in person. And as for spreading on someone is a good person without using the rate system, a simple "You know ____ _______ is a pretty good builder." in a conversation fitting a prop would be a really good way of doing it.

The way I see it, changing the rating system will just create a new angry mob of "Rater Haters" (Please note that isn't a direct insult to anyone *sigh* a little harmless humor is all it is.). Ridding the Rate system will just be one less feature in Second Life. And just like my view on Rights (RL) one less feature is is just taking away from us. I think the rating system is pretty good the way it is now, it could use some minor modifications, yes, and maybe some tweaks, but the basic core should not change. As it is now, I have been given less ratings than I have given, and my reasoning is I am still new. Everyone I see appears to be very creative looking (I base most ratings on appearance.) and a lot of people seem helpfull (second most.) and when I'm not knocked 5 sims out of it, a lot of creations in the sandbox are impressive. As time goes on, earning ratings from me will be a little harder, and thats the way it is for a lot of people.
To clarify, all of this is my opinion, and the suggestions are only suggestions. -Sn0rph.

Snorph, I still maintain that the system as it is now is causing social damage. It is *unwise* right now to interact with folks you don't know, or go out in public without watching your back, because arbitrary negs DO happen.

And as much as the folks who love this system say it should be allowed, I still have heard no legitimate reason as to why you should be able to be rated on behavior and building for simply *appearing* at a location.

Being in Welcome puts you at risk. Holding events puts you at risk. Simply being around large crowds of people which may include newbies or antisocial folks who simply want to rile folks up, puts you at risk for being triple-negged for no reason whatsoever.

I am not, nor have I ever, protested "justified negs". But I honestly believe that arbitrary negs happen now more often than justified ones do. Nearly everyone I speak to ends up looking at their profile and saying "Oh sh*t! I got negged!"; they don't know who did it, why, where it came from -- and usually, of course, it's in all three areas.

Face it, (and it's verified in the 'main forum' quite a bit) - some people neg rate for fun. Until this is fixed, you're going to have people who aren't going to take chances, who aren't going to hold events, who aren't going to socialize -- because it isn't worth the risk, where simply hanging out in a populated area can damage your permanent account record on SL.

So, you're going to have the troublemakers out in the open, and those who actually value their reputation, holing up on their land and staying away from the general populace.

People say, "Oh, it's not a big deal, stop whining." - generally those are the folks who hand out the negs like candy because they had a bad day at the office. But it *IS* significant, because it is permanent, it is infinitely cumulative, it does reduce your stipend, and restrictions based on ratings CAN be coded into the system via LSL, they just haven't yet.

So there are several concrete, tangible, measureable detrimental effects as a result of neg ratings. Whenever you receive one, you are punished by the system (and by SecondLife itself?) - and I don't believe that such things should be completely arbitrary.

If you can "counter" that, as to why you should be able to rate someone on building and behavior who has just rezzed in infront of you, please let me know.

I agree with you, negs that have no purpose are a problem, along with the mass negs I stated above. Are negs deleted if/when the person who rated you negatively leaves second life? if not, that might be a good system to implement. Also, how about putting rating restrictions on trial accounts? I meant to mention that idea at the bottom of my other post. A person on a trial can be rated, but can not rate. That might keep the negs down a little, and I don't think it would really bother those on trials too much, seeing how they can still be rated.

A slight insight though. People are the real problem. Anything that involves social interaction will have problems. From simple chatroom booters to wall hacks in first person shooters, to griefers (insert other name for problem) in mmorpgs, to people in real life who want nothing more than to make someone else miserable. If people want to make you mad, or do damage to your character, they will. With or without the rating system, they will. They'll knock you as many sims aways as they can as frequently as they can, they'll drop 10x10x10m phys objs on you. They'll attempt to lag you as bad as possible. They'll fudge up false abuse reports. They'll spawn a ball/web ball around you, and when you sit on it to get out they'll just spawn another. Maybe they'll just verbally harass you until you mute them. Or bump in to you repeatedly. Or, of course, rate you 3 negs across the board for doing nothing but walking by or asking them why they were doing one of the others in the first place.

Above statements are scattered replies put in a neat opinion heh.

And if you take away everything they can use to harm you, you'll have nothing left, because they'll find a way to use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING against you if they want to.
---------------------------------------------------------------

"And as much as the folks who love this system say it should be allowed, I still have heard no legitimate reason as to why you should be able to be rated on behavior and building for simply *appearing* at a location."

I'll assume you are refering to a person who has not proven their ability to build based on a custom Avatar made by themselves, or a person who tps in and within a couple minutes has already helped someone else... etc. There is no legitimate reason, and if the ratings are good, there really isn't any harm. (Unless I am missing something I didn't cover in above post.)
If you mean neg ratings, then my answer is in the above statement, but I'll say "Its wrong, there is probably NO REASON for such action, but at the same time, people do it. Ridding the world of guns wont solve violence, just like ridding it of ratings wont solve harassment. Both are two things that will not be solved."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"...But it *IS* significant, because it is permanent, it is infinitely cumulative, it does reduce your stipend, and restrictions based on ratings CAN be coded into the system via LSL, they just haven't yet."

Ok I'll cover 2 ends on this: 1. Persons putting restrictions on areas and/or objects based on rating. (Which I believe is possible (been working on code in that area), but as far as I have seen not been done... and probably not due to lack of trying, but due to to..).
3 words, if you count of. Loss of Buisness. That would probably be equal to having a background check done before you go in to a supermarket. For most buisnesses in game, your rating is useless. As for a type of system that blocks others with bad ratings from your event, it might actually be used by someone one day. And less people will arrive at their event. A lot less. Most people have some sort of negative rating. Maybe, instead of doing that, we can put these devices, but set to the number of negative ratings the person has given out (my total is 5 or 6, can't remember.... spend most of my time at sandboxes... I'll only let so many sim clears and watermelon launchers go by without action taken).
But then those who have given out legit negs will be punished, same as those who has received unlegit neg ratings. It would basically be ratism.... why add that?
2. Lindens implement something with rate restrictions: Why? I personally don't see anything like that happening...or reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, you're going to have the troublemakers out in the open, and those who actually value their reputation, holing up on their land and staying away from the general populace."
(SL Hermits?? SL Citizens on the run??)
I'm afraid to say this, but that just sounds a little farfetched to me. 1. I'm pretty sure most of those people would leave SL before that happend. (SL Dies over Rating system? VERY Highly doubted. SL is too good to leave over that.) 2. Move to restricted land (SL Suburbia? SL Gated communities? Over Rate Crimes? Highly doubted. I don't think there will be a headline on CNN saying "Crime wave of Neg Ratings at all time high in South Centeral Morris" Or maybe people will just go on. (Humans Resilient? My money is on that.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
And in closing:
I honestly believe that ratings are not as much of a problem as some put off, problems do arise with them, but they do with everything. If they became a horrible problem, then I think LL would probably take considerable measures to fix what would then be a total broken system.
There are more than 2 sides to this issue. And if this whole thing was to actually get down to it, I would suggest a voting event. (multiple for those on different time zones/frames, and not a vote box in the middle of someone's property, an actuall listed event so those who are still a little new can stop by and vote also.) Preferably held by a Linden (possible? Don't know.) BUT, I, frankly, think that time would be better spent thinking of what to add to Second Life, and what Critical problems may exist. Either way, though, I agree problems. But short of making Second Life in to the NO SECOND CHANCE CHAT SOFTWARE with a 500 page TOS and a staff equal to 1 Linden per user, and a Text Based chat program with censorship, you will have problems. And ones related to users misbehaving will not be fixed.

Above post is all opinion, except for suggestions and beliefs. No harm was intended in any comments made. All questions will please be addressed to Sn0rph C.O. Secondlife. Somewhere in a sandbox.

Sn0rph, you compare neg ratings to having '10x10x10 cubes dropped on you'... such things aren't a permanent mark, and can be shrugged off. Being sim bumped, as well. False abuse reports can be found to be false pretty easily by LL. And, if they do the above, they'll get kicked off of SL themselves.

For arbitrary negs though, they won't. The Lindens don't consider that abuse.

I don't run Mentor events anymore, as much as I'd like to. It's too risky. I know quite a few others who feel the same way.

Ratings do fall off when the person leaves SL, but with the $10-forever accounts, nobody leaves SL anymore.

Comparing random negs to gun violence, and saying 'ridding the world of guns wont solve the problem'? Ratings and guns are very different, Sn0rph, and I could use the same logic to say that permanent PK'ing should be allowed, with the response of "Eh, some people'll do it. You can't stop them." -- does that mean we should give everyone a permanent PK ability?

I don't think so.

You even tried to reason arbitrary negs-on-rez into saying that maybe people neg-rated someone who just showed up on building because they didn't like how they "built" their avatar? That's a stretch.

The problems caused outweigh the benefits by far. All negatives tell anyone, is that said person got into an argument with someone, or simply ran into the wrong crowd.

Now, I want to ask, are you simply trying to debate, or do you really enjoy the neg rating ability this much?

... Judging by your profile, you enjoy them, no? It appears that you've neatly tagged at least two people in all three areas, and have received none yourself. Tell me, were these people equally bad in appearance, building, and behavior?

Or did you simply not like them for one reason or another, and wanted to permanently harm them as much as the system would allow you to?

First off, this isn't a debate on my character (person or game wise) and attempting to belittle me based on my actions gets you no further in this. I have rated negs, and they were called for. If you must know though, 4 were behavior related and 2 were appearance. They justified to me, and if you look closer at my profile (since you decided to take it upon yourself to investigate me, I guess so you could drudge up something to attempt to harm me so your debate will be one sided...) you will notice I have given out many more positive ratings. If you also watch me around world, (which I don't doubt you may do.... it is beyond me that looking my profile up was on your agenda, and anything else you may do wouldn't come as such a surprise now...) you will notice I try to be as nice to people as possible, and spend most of my time at a small sandbox, bingo, or in the Morris begin area. I also enjoy smoking, and have been arrested once for a drunk in public. Just incase you wanted anything else on me. And don't deny your reasoning behind looking my profile up, its clearly to drag my name through the mud a little so you can be oh so right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sn0rph, you compare neg ratings to having '10x10x10 cubes dropped on you'... such things aren't a permanent mark, and can be shrugged off. Being sim bumped, as well. False abuse reports can be found to be false pretty easily by LL. And, if they do the above, they'll get kicked off of SL themselves."

No no no... you have it all wrong there. Having 10x10x10 cubes and being sim bumped are permanent. Thats MY time. I can't simply llRezObject 5 or 10 or 30 more minutes that were wasted by someone of very little intelligence deciding to waste my time. A simple neg doesn't waste your time, does it? Do you have to fly, lag, bump in to walls that haven't loaded *repeat* by being negged? If so you must have went pretty far out of your way to be negged. No, unlike you Michi, we all don't have unlimited amounts of time to just fly around and take notes on people's profiles. So there, which is worse? A negative rating A NUMBER that as far as now, has really little meaning, or the universal equalizer, TIME? The thing that is finite or the infinite? Which means more? Maybe you gear your life towards what a little -1 or -2 means to you, but here on planet earth I work and I sleep. And time I went flying across 4 sims and had to fly back to have it done again, until whatever I was doing before the incident becomes another usless object with no name in my inventory or another event I missed. And I'm sure you will counter this with "it isn't that much time" it is to me. And since I'm important enough to have my 6 neg ratings investigated, I think I'm important enough to have my time. Then you'll counter that with "well, do something else." I'll say no. If I was doing something in the first place, I must have wanted to do it more than anything else. Therefore I don't wish to do something else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't run Mentor events anymore, as much as I'd like to. It's too risky. I know quite a few others who feel the same way."

Well then I guess we can count that as a loss to everyone out there, you allowed your fear of a negative number to over power your giving back to the community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Comparing random negs to gun violence, and saying 'ridding the world of guns wont solve the problem'? Ratings and guns are very different, Sn0rph, and I could use the same logic to say that permanent PK'ing should be allowed, with the response of "Eh, some people'll do it. You can't stop them." -- does that mean we should give everyone a permanent PK ability?"

PKing isn't an issue in Second Life (yay!). But if you look at your comparison, which you didn't.. if one person had the ability to permanent PK I would hope everyone would have that ability. Of course no one has the ability to permanent PK (which would be for those who don't know, permanently killing your character). To clarify: 1. There would be ONLY one way of killing the character, and that would be to kill said character. Ratings are just one way of harassment, there are many more ways besides rating that will constitute general harassment. You are comparing the broad to the narrow. 2. My comparison wasn't the same as yours, my comparison was that by ridding the world of guns, there would still be violence (violence being a very broad act) and ridding SL of ratings wouldn't end harassment (harassment being very broad). Basically we did two different comparison types, which would have two different meanings (ex: You: birds / DOG Me: birds / mammals.) So basically I said that ridding the world of guns wont stop violence, and you said ridding the world of guns would stop shootings. You therefore ignore the rise in stabbings, poisonings, beatings, and all other forms of violence that would increase.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"You even tried to reason arbitrary negs-on-rez into saying that maybe people neg-rated someone who just showed up on building because they didn't like how they "built" their avatar? That's a stretch."

And you tried to say that if you were to win the world series you would put a car in every garage and make tofu the new food for the century.

Both are examples of putting words in others mouths, altough mine is more of an extreme example. Why do I say this, because I didn't try to use that reason.

YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT: "And as much as the folks who love this system say it should be allowed, I still have heard no legitimate reason as to why you should be able to be rated on behavior and building for simply *appearing* at a location."

MY REPLY: I'll assume you are refering to a person who has not proven their ability to build based on a custom Avatar made by themselves, or a person who tps in and within a couple minutes has already helped someone else... etc. There is no legitimate reason, and if the ratings are good, there really isn't any harm. (Unless I am missing something I didn't cover in above post.)

You didn't clarify if you were refering to negative or positive ratings on that. I tried to cover both ends in a small comment, and I apologize if you skipped part of it, but as you can see my reply says no such thing, and I have not edited that post at all, just incase you want to question my character again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now, I want to ask, are you simply trying to debate, or do you really enjoy the neg rating ability this much? "

Well, 1st I was trying to voice my opinion on the rating system in a whole.
Then, 2nd I was debating with you on a few issues and still voicing my opinion.
And this one I think I'm debating with you, correcting YOUR mistakes, and overall questioning your motives for attempting to bring up things you think will possibly hurt me? my reputation? to get me to stop saying I like the rating system? I would look up your profile in return, but I don't think I will. I do have a pretty good feeling that you have recieved a few neg ratings. As for if you deserved them, thats an issue that only you and the person who rated you badly know, but there are 2 sides to every story. Then again your slate could be clean as a whistle.... don't know, don't really care. I don't mind the guessing game, but I really don't feel like playing private eye this morning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Or did you simply not like them for one reason or another, and wanted to permanently harm them as much as the system would allow you to? "

Questioning my motives publicly? Saying I said something I didn't say publicly? Lets question who looks like they want to do permanent harm more here.

-Sn0rph
Given 6 negative ratings and recieved none as of 7:27PST July 30th.
(probably soon to change, but oh well, just a number with a - in front.)

P.S. I said this isn't a debate on my character at the top of my post, but meant to say this WASN'T a debate on my character.
P.P.S. The reason this is down here is because I DO NOT edit my posts. Over the years of forums I've learned you edit a letter on a post, and next thing you're accused of changing it all around etc. etc.

Oh, and my idea about a series (different time zones and schedules) of events (Linden Ran?) for voting on the rating issue (if its such a big deal)? *nudge nudge* *wink*. I think a lot of people would be content with it the way it is, but eh... I only know what I think about them.

Most people want to keep ratings because they want the weekly income...that tells us about the validity of the ratings system. Ratings should be eliminated. It's ridiculous that some of leaders in the building category have never built one item.

If ratings are kept, then there must be a way to research ratings given and received; and an easier way to deliver or change a rating. We should be able to rate or rerate any person listed in find.

I'll admit, the bonus for high ratings isn't exactly a curse on mankind, and that the bonus is one of the reasons I like the rating system, that and it gives me a slight insight on a person's character.

But I don't see why "most people" wanting to keep the rating system for money means it should be eliminated. If most people want to keep them, then it seems obvious that it should stay. There is no harm from it giving extra cash, mainly so for the 9 for lifers who only get $50 a week without the bonus. And the economy can be a debate, but what is the value of L$s to RL$s compared to the value of RL$s to currency used in other virtual worlds and mmorpgs? (I think the value of a L$ is higher than credits in mmorpgs, but not too sure about other virtual worlds, or if they even use currency... I live my virtual life in SL and thats enough life for me.. heh)

As for leaders in the building catagory, I think you are wrong. I know a few leaders (top 10) off the top of my head are very popular for the places they own (and the things they built inside), and on top of it all most (all?) of the people in the leaders board have been around for a long time. Can you honestly say that someone who has been in Second Life long enough to be listed in the leaders top 10 (and I assume you are refering to the top 10, because everyone is listed in the leaders area, as long as they are in the top 10 or very close to your position they'll show up) hasn't built one thing? I kinda imagine that like being in Second Life and not once ever going to an event. And building I think is meant to be classified as building with prims, making clothing, animations, or scripts.

Ok, as for the easier way of delivering a rating. (rerate I wont comment on, because there are too many issues involved, doesn't sound like too bad of an idea, but it could open some doors) . If there was one thing I think most of us would agree would be a bad idea, it would be the ability rate any person in find. Imagine if everyone who did abuse the rating system had the ability to just go down a list and click Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, until finished, then sign back on with another 9 for life and do it again. I'm going to argue that I like the rating system more than I like the idea of drastically changing it or eliminating it as a whole, but honestly, that would probably lead to a rating disaster.

But eh, I dunno, we could probably change the rating system to a points system, or to a write one good thing about the person here type thing, or to a if you give a neg rating you will be nagged about it and charged every set period type system, maybe an E-Card system, basically any type of change.... and I think the exact same number of people will hate it, and same will like it, and same wont care, and same will find a way to abuse it. To me it just seems like asking them to rewrite the code ratings code when all they really have to do is:

list everyone;
list hate;
list like;
list dontcare;
list abuseit;

Then write a little code for the names in everyone to be shuffled and put randomly in the other four. Maybe set it to do it in a touch event, that way its a lot easier than waiting for the threads in the forum. heh. (Above about lists was a joke, need to clarify I'm not suggesting a new type of whacky rating system that involves that.) I just feel that any type of change to this ratings system is a waste of time, because it will just be the same thing but a new group of people. And ridding the ratings system will just end up with more people angry that the leaders board they once strived for and/or the ratings they once accumulated are now gone. Not to mention the bonus, but I think if the system was ridded the base amount of L$s would be higher, but not as high as with the ratings... so yet more people complaining. But then again, maybe ridding the ratings system will make Second Life a virtual utopia, where humans no matter what age, creed, color, sex, nationality, political belief, avatar size, maturity level, intelligence, skill, economic position, level of neatness, disability, porche or mercedes, meat or no meat, etc. can live together in peace and harmony, with no differences. And nothing will upset another, and so on. But I think I'd have better luck trying to cramming a boulder through the hole in the top of a coke can without so much as scratching the metal.

Sn0rph

i was thinking that people aren't rewarded for doing self-less things. and that is just about how it should be, people should not expect a reward for doing something self-less, because - well - it wouldn't be self-less.

but it would be nice to reward these people, nonetheless. they are the people who make sl as community better with each passing day.

and it would be nice if these rewards actually meant something. so...

* * *

i was thinking that once a week residents could get to award someone with a bonus. not out of their own money, but something like a stipend bonus but that instead people got to award.

details:
- once a week a resident would be given a "sl benefactor award"
- this award would only be worth anything if it were given away, - it would only benefit the person recieving it.
- is would show up in a weeks time in the recipient's balance. (to help deal with attempts to game the system.)
- each resident could give this award to any other resident only once.
- the giver of the award would be required to write at least 100 characters saying why this person deserved the award. (with checks to make sure it's real words)
- each individual resident award would be worth l$100 + l$(N * number of weeks a resident has existed). this money would come from LL.
- without public fanfare the top 10 (or 100 or 1000) people receiving the most such awards in a month's time would recieve 1/10th (or 1/100th or 1/1000th) of the money they were awarded during the month.
- all recipients of awards would recieve in their stipend 1/40th (or 1/400th or 1/4000th) (some fraction to keep this from getting completely out of hand) of the total awards they have received over the life of their account as a weekly stipend bonus.
- i suppose the max stipend bonus should be maxed out.

* * *

while i like this idea, one of the important things is to figure out of it can be gamed. poking holes in this idea is worth would be a worthwhile exercise.

Get rid of them. They contribute to stifling hierarchy. They are the object of mass obsession. They are regularly abused, creating an inworld atmosphere of mistrust and cynicism. They measure nothing useful. They indicate nothing accurately. They are a relic of an early "game mentality". The idea of rewarding a person with money for ethical behavior is offensive to mature adults. They serve no useful purpose toward the maintenance of order in SL society; just the opposite.

I can't figure out why they're still around. Replacing them with a new "system" is silly and would most likely be subject to similar abuses. However, I agree with the general assumptions behind His Grace's proposal. Community awards for specific acts is something to discuss.

Do no tie stipends into ratings. Period. If you Lindens still desire to break the economy, do so with other methods of free money (dev incentives, referrals, etc).

Lordfly had a nice idea, add ratings to the "I'm good at..." categories.


Ratings are one of the few things that try to make SL a game. It's not a game. Ratings are also probably the most abused "feature" in SL. I can't believe it's taken so long to get any attention.

Dump the stipend bonus, at the very least, then play with non-game influencing "ratings" while you work on a better econ model.

Boso

Perhaps the reason the ratings need to be changed is because they're simply gamed.

I was trying to tell the newbies at the welcoming area several nights ago that the rating system wasn't there just for "free money", and it was probably wrong to just rate mine. I was berated, called an "idiot" and a "moron" for not wanting free money. Eventually, a couple triple neg rates from a newbie's alt accounts ended the night.

The new people coming in have zero respect for the numbers, they just want more than everyone else. It's a game. It's a simple game. It's a game cheated at.

Remove it.

LF

ugg that kind of sucks. But there are mitigating factors. Most noobs have no idea or skills to help them make money but they want to spend money on cars, clothing and gambling; not to mention the price of land. I've tried to stay out of peoples morals; which has done well for my ratings. People don't like to be judged, so yes i think you were screwed; but on the flip side i don't see you as innocent.

which brings me to an idea not directed at anyone in particular. If you don't like the rating system as it is now send back your bonus; pay Philip Linden the bonus amount and send an IM with it. If you are truely commited to getting it changed then this should be easy to do.

Well its not the system that is so bad. its the fact that it gets abused. My suggestion would be that avatars get a certain amount of rate points each week to rate each other with, that way when you give one to someone it really means something cause you have a finite amount. It would have to be a low number like 5 a week, yet still effect payments similar to the way it does now. As for neg rating they should be a really low number, like 1 a month, you have to really hate someone to use your one neg on them.

I also believe those who currently have accounts when this is implemented should be given the rate points for all the time they have played. That way its still somewhat fair to the people who have been here for years, they should have something to show for all the time they have put into the current rate system.

Here's a n00b perspective, though not a naive one. I've had a bit of experience with reputation systems before, and though I've only been in SL for a week I've already seen things that do and don't work with the current system. I won't reiterate those points, as others have already done a good job of that.

What I'd propose is using a whuffie type of system. In other words, reputation points ARE currency. Check out Cory Doctorow's _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_ for an example of a woofie-based economy. In SL, I'd suggest unifying Linden bucks and reputation points. It already costs $1 to rate someone by one point. And you wouldn't pay money for someone's crafts unless you thought they were either a good at building or running a business. Either way, there's a close tie between money and rep rating.

This un-games the system in a few important ways. Mutual ratings cancel out. Having rating parties is now pointless (literally, heh) - everyone goes to a party and gives each other points, but it's a zero-sum game, so there is no net effect and no reason to do it. It also means that anyone who gets a positive rating gets a reward for it immediately, rather than having to work to claw up to the top ranks to have it be worthwhile.

Such a rating system would be more meaningful if there were no weekly stipend. But there needs to be some way to give players a regular income. I'll pass the baton here and let someone else run with this. Or shoot me down now, I'm a n00b after all!

[edit: correct spelling]

the basic problem with this system is it would tend to over-reward 'exploiters' who use SL's rules to their advantage without regard to social or SL wide harm they are doing (such as people who markup land to extrodinary prices)

At the same time it would under-reward some of the most important people in SL who do alot of the really hard work programming and designing for little material reward.

Not that the system couldn't work with a more materialistic online game (naming no names) but SL, where the true currency is creativity and skill, simply isn't wholly compatable with the idea that money = game reputation