>read #41509 A System of Collective Empowerment ---------------------------------- by Lambda (#50) [Last edited on Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 5:30 pm] Motivation: LambdaMOO needs a way to prevent people who are abusing or ignoring its social contract from bothering others; the wizards used to do this but don't any longer. No centralized mechanism is adequate, though; divisions into the powerful and the weak are counterproductive and aggravating to many people. We must look for solutions that allow the populace as a whole to exercise direct control over the shape of their society; we must find ways to empower all of the players, collectively. At the same time, we need a mechanism for handling situations requiring immediate action. This proposal does both of these things, empowering all of the people of LambdaMOO and allowing them to choose to aggregate their power for swift action. Proposal: Each real player (non-guest, non-wizard, non-second-character) is given the ability to attach either a plus mark, a minus mark, or no mark at all to each other player; no player may attach more than one mark to any other player. Initially, no mark at all is attached to anyone by anyone. When a mark is attached to someone, it lasts for one week unless it is either renewed or removed by the marker in that time. Players can change the mark they've assigned to any particular person only once every five minutes (for example, if I give you a minus mark, then I can't remove it from you, or replace it by a plus mark, until at least five minutes have elapsed); this is to discourage the frivolous use of marks. At any time, any player can see the number of minus and plus marks attached to any other player, but not the identities of the people who attached those marks. That is, everything about all marks is public except that all marks are anonymous. Any player can give `proxy' authority over their marks to any number of other players, or revoke such authority, at any time. A player who holds proxy authority for another player effectively has more marks to attach; when the proxy-holder attaches their own mark to someone, they automatically also attach the marks of every player whose proxy they hold. Thus, it is possible for a group of players to act collectively, by each giving proxy authority to all of the others. Like marks, however, proxy authority lasts for one week unless either renewed or revoked by the authorizer. Here is a summary of the new mark-related commands to be made available to players: @plus-mark @minus-mark @unmark Change the mark you have attached to the named player. @proxy @unproxy Grant or revoke proxy authority to or from the named player. @marks @marks See the numbers marks placed on you or the named player. If on you, also show what marks you have attached to others. @proxies @proxies See lists of the people to whom you or the named player have granted proxy authority and by whom you or the named player have been granted it. So now we have a system of players marking and unmarking other players; the effect of the marks is as follows. At any given time, a certain number of players have connected to LambdaMOO within the past week; a recent count showed about 1050 players having done so. If the number of minus marks attached to some person exceeds the number of plus marks by at least 10% of that count, then the marked player is made unable to connect to LambdaMOO. If they are connected when this condition becomes true, then they are immediately booted. When they attempt to reconnect, if the condition is still true, they are told the current numbers of minus and plus marks attached to them and also the current count of recently-connected players. This allows the ousted player to determine how close or far they are from regaining access to LambdaMOO. Because all mark-counts are public information, it is also public knowledge who is currently barred from connecting. A special board should be placed in the Living Room listing the names and counts of all currently-ousted players, so that others may easily determine the effects of society's judgement and, perhaps, add minus or plus marks to emphasize or reverse that judgement. Marks on guest characters are somewhat problematical, since they do not represent single individuals. The marks in such cases apply not to the guest player itself but rather to the site from which they are connecting to LambdaMOO; rather than ousting the guest character, a sufficiency of marks would prevent guest connections from the site in question. Marks against guests should be as public as those against other players, actually exposing the names of marked guest-connecting sites. Marks on registered `second' characters should be treated as if they were marks on the associated `first' character. Similarly, if a player is being excluded from the MOO by the marking system, then so should all of their registered `second' characters. There are a couple of ancillary issues that ought to be resolved as a part of the implementation of this system. First, the existance of this system should be made abundantly clear to all players, especially new ones, along with complete instructions for using it. To borrow a phrase, the proper functioning of a marking system depends upon an informed marking public. Second, it ought to be possible for markers to publicly and anonymously give the reasons for attaching their marks and for marked players to publicly (and unanonymously) defend themselves against those reasons. Some kind of optionally-anonymous mailing list should be established for the purpose. (End of text.) >@mail 1-$ on *P:marking 32 messages on *Petition:Marking (#41509): 1: May 9 23:40 Lambda (#50) Marking system petition 2: May 10 10:57 Bakunin (#3553) Re: Marking system petition 3: May 10 17:20 Tesser (#49838) Re: Marking system petition 4: May 10 18:18 Xiombarg (#37636) my old post 5: May 11 22:17 Lambda (#50) "What's the critical difference fo 6: May 11 23:17 Lambda (#50) Questions and Answers About the Ma 7: May 12 07:53 Xiombarg (#37636) um... 8: May 13 13:47 Bakunin (#3553) Some comments on the marking syste 9: May 13 17:31 Bakunin (#3553) Re: Some comments about marking 10: May 15 21:43 PatGently (#37637) comparison of banish and marking 11: May 16 23:29 Mickey (#52413) Re: comparison of banish and marki 12: May 22 00:40 Frand (#47) proxies 13: May 22 01:24 Frand (#47) auto-marking 14: May 22 02:12 Frand (#47) proxy expiration 15: May 22 05:49 jerico (#34983) close but no cigar! 16: May 23 18:28 Xiombarg (#37636) marking 17: May 25 19:46 Lambda (#50) Re: A System of Collective Empower 18: May 26 17:27 Lambda (#50) Some responses 19: May 26 18:22 Lambda (#50) More responses 20: May 26 22:49 Quo_Vadis (#53118) down with proxies 21: May 27 10:34 Lambda (#50) Re: down with proxies 22: May 27 12:51 Mickey (#52413) Re: down with proxies 23: May 27 22:53 PatGently (#37637) proxies 24: Jun 21 19:51 Xiombarg (#37636) marking 25: Nov 2 17:36 Beth (#56762) proxy 26: Nov 2 20:26 yduJ (#68) Re: proxy 27: Nov 3 12:52 Klaatu (#57052) I'm agin' it... 28: Nov 3 13:44 Joe (#2612) Re: I'm agin' it... 29: Nov 3 14:32 Joe (#2612) [Klaatu (#57052): Re: I'm agin' i 30: Nov 3 14:36 Joe (#2612) Justice 31: Nov 15 15:01 Sick (#41057) take out the proxies and lower the >>32: Dec 8 12:43 dr (#7003) Tyranny of the Majority ----+ Message 1 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sun May 9 23:40:12 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *social-issues (#7233) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Marking system petition I have put together a petition laying out again my old `marking system' proposal for collective empowerment. I have not yet signed it because I am looking for feedback from folks, so please take a look and feel free to send comments to *P:Marking (#41509). -------------------------- Message 2 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Mon May 10 10:57:39 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: Haakon (#2), *social-issues (#7233), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Marking system petition You cannot propose a critique of power and defense of populism from a position of absolute power without acknowledging the problematic nature of the endeavor. Ignoring the work we've all tried to do, within conflict and comradery, to analyze power relations here, and reconstituting it in his own terms, Haakon is contradicting the goals he sets for himself, and by extension, the rest of the community: for collective empowerment. The cooptation of a specific style of critique, without any gesture to ongoing dialogue, is disingenuous. This isn't a question of Haakon's rights as a petitioner. It's a question of an ex machina style, his refusal to acknowledge ongoing dialogue and social trends, and his seemingly willful ignorance of the power that he holds. If anyone else posted to *soc implying that they'd just discovered the notion of "collective empowerment" and is down from the Mount to share it with us, we'd be amused or infuriated. A petition from Haakon, following on the heels of his imposition of democracy by fiat, holds far more potential power than any action of which anyone else here is remotely capable. Empowerment needs to arise from within the community. The petition system was imposed from outside -- but I am willing to work within it because it seems fair, despite the method of its arrival, and because it holds the promise of incorporating structural changes from within (e.g. distribution of previously-wizardly power). Blackmarking, in a sense, also arrives from outside, even if it was composed in November, 1992, because its arrival denotes the potential quashing of methods under debate, despite being a similar mechanism (banishment requires a one-year seniority and supplies no equivalent of "white-marking", but the proposal will be modified to encompass worthwhile suggestions I've received). If Haakon is truly interested in a banishment mechanism, and clearly he is, would it have not been a more "communal" gesture to make a detailed critique available to me, for possible incorporation into the banishment (#43827) petition? If someone had proposed a mechanism similar to one I had in mind, I would have first attempted to work with them before proposing a competing petition. -------------------------- Message 3 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Mon May 10 17:20:06 1993 PDT From: Tesser (#49838) To: *social-issues (#7233), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Marking system petition Bakunin, Haakon shared this with us on *soc quite as while ago. I imagine the posts are still in the *soc archives. He asked for input and we gave it. He also made it clear that he would be petitionizing it many times over. Perhaps you could have looked in the archives at that point if you weren't here when it was first suggested. Is he supposed to drag out his old posts and repost them just for you? I found his Blackmarking petitoin quite communal. -Tesser P.S. Sorry about the typos, my fingers are frozen. -------------------------- Message 4 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Mon May 10 18:18:06 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: my old post Anyone wanna dig up my old objections to this from *soc? I don't have the time or energy... -Xi -------------------------- Message 5 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Tue May 11 22:17:13 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: Xiombarg (#37636), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: "What's the critical difference for you? Xiombarg, you've said that you find the marking proposal objectionable (though I can't remember why from the old discussion of it and you haven't explained your position recently), and yet you've signed Bakunin's banishment petition which some people believe is very similar. Would you be willing to explain what the critical difference is between them that allows you to support one and not the other? -------------------------- Message 6 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Tue May 11 23:17:44 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) and Yoda (#50276) Subject: Questions and Answers About the Marking System What follows is an edited transcript of a little question and answer session I had with Shungnak/Yoda about the marking system. I thought others might find the discussion interesting or helpful in understanding the proposal. Q: The marking system gets rid of a bunch of red tape, but what if, say, all the MOOers from Colorado got mad at someone? Personally, I think I could give someone 40 minus marks without too much difficulty. A: That's the nature of democracy; get a bigger gang. I don't believe that their gang has enough members to banish someone on their own anyway. Q: And how do you deal with players with multiple chars? A: I don't believe that there are sufficiently many of them to make a significant difference. Of course, we could always keep registered second characters from marking anyone. Q: I agree with those two points, but how bout the person who really doesn't do anything "wrong", but is just unpopular? Do we only want those here who are "nice" people, or do we want to extend an invatation to everyone, except those who go beyond the set guidelines? A: To know what `we' want, see who gets banished and stays that way. Then you'll know who a substantial fraction of the population doesn't want here. This is called democracy in action. What I like about my proposal is that it really represents the will of the people *whatever that may be*. Q: Yeah, I guess it does. I was just trying to make LambdaMOO the "great American melting pot" which it obviously isn't. A: In essence, it's a low level system on which all sorts of other mechanisms might be based, like judges, courts, even arbitration. People who believe in those higher-level mechanisms can give proxy authority to the enforcement arms of such mechanisms to give them teeth. LambdaMOO may well turn out to be an uncritical melting pot, if that was what everyone wanted. I don't think it is, though. I think people want other people to be reasonably decent and unabusive. Q: I like this proposal too, in addition to Grump's on arbitration. I think I'd sign both and hear what others have to say about them before I decided which to vote for. A: Or, I suppose, you could even consistently vote for both. Q: I have some reservations as to how responsibly some folks will take it. IMHO, many folks act/are kinda immature, and just get on here to 'play' and losing all sense of responsibility. A: Yes, the ability of people to act out of ignorance or irresponsibility is at the heart of democracy; it's the flip side of its whole reason for being. Q: What if someone makes up an untrue story about another, who happens not to log on for awhile. Because of this they are toaded, with no recourse other than to come on as a guest and ask what happened. A: Remember, the system does not involve toading, only temporary banishment. Unless everyone stayed convinced that the victim was awful and should stay away, and unless that person had no friends who could cast plus marks to counter the banishment, they'd get back on and could explain their side. If people *did* stay determined to keep them out, and the person *didn't* have enough friends to counter this tide of opinion, who is to say that they *should* be here? Q: So what about the case of a newbie who doesn't understand the rules, and doesn't have time to make friends before folks banish them? Especially during the summer when fewer folks are on. A: If that's the way a substantial fraction of this community wants to run society and there's not another substantial fraction interested in countering this practice, who's to say it doesn't represent the will of the populace? I don't think such a scenario is likely, but if it did happen, it would be because that's what people wanted to happen. Even during the summer months, LambdaMOO is a large, bustling place with lots of players from lots of backgrounds. -------------------- If you have other questions about the marking proposal and would like to talk to me about them in person rather than via MOO-mail, feel free. Lambda -------------------------- Message 7 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed May 12 07:53:47 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: Lambda (#50), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: um... Actually, I was planning on voting Bakunin's proposal down. But if push comes to shove, Bakunin's proposal is less awkward. -Xi -------------------------- Message 8 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Thu May 13 13:47:44 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Some comments on the marking system There are a few aspects of marking which bother me. I'm concerned that it is available to all players: although I would like to see an equitable and fair consensual decision-making mechanism, I think that players should attain a minimum seniority to use the system. My banishment petition stipulates a one-year tenure: I now believe this is too long and should be reduced to six months. The rationale is simple: Any mechanism is prone to abuse, and I believe that serious players (those who have been here six months or longer), who are more emotionally invested in the community, are less likely to abuse the mechanism. As I said in message 4 of *p:banish: I've also witnessed enough fighting in the living room to see that conflict often escalates to the highest level of damaging technology available (spamming, weapons, teleportation), for the most trivial of reasons. Almost invariably it is the newest players, who, perhaps naively, perhaps out of curiosity, are testing the limits of their powers at the slightest provocation. It isn't that my proposal implies that newer players are unable to recognize abuse when it manifests itself: It is that, in my experience, new players often mistake personality conflicts, disagreements, and trivial, easily-thwarted annoyances for the most extreme kind of social attack, and tend to want to respond with the most extreme level of force available to them. Beyond that, it is the proxy system I find most problematic about this proposal. I understand that the reason for proxies is to provide a method for players to elect MOO sheriffs, in whom the authority of many is entrusted -- this supplies, I think, the capacity for "immediate action" mentioned in the petition. From a purely structural point of view, marking and proxy comprise two opposing philosophies: the capacity of an individual player to take action, and a mechanism to relinquish that right, creating more powerful players. The petition system and the two banishment mechanisms arose from the general agitation to provide collective empowerment through individual action; I find it odd that it incorporates within it the means to migrate back to a select group of empowered individuals. These two tendencies are so opposed to each other that I wonder why they aren't separate petitions, one calling for a banishment mechanism, the other the election of MOO sheriffs (I would oppose the latter). The petition system is designed to encompass almost any style of social change: I am unsure why each single petition should endeavor to do the same thing. I do not undestand the economics of marking, either. If I have the ability to attach a single mark to a player, why should I be able to grant my proxy to more than one player? The marking petition states: "Any player can give `proxy' authority over their marks to any number of other players..." Presumably, each of the players to whom I grant my proxy could affix a mark to the same player, thus multiplying what was the single vote that I relinquished. What is the rationale for this augmentation of my single, though displaced, voice? I also believe that the 10% figure of connected players within a week is too high, and that there should be a time-limit on the accrual of marks. If marks accrue over an indefinite period of time, I am concerned that the result will be the banishment of players who are merely annoying. I suggest that something closer to 10% of the total connected players during the interval of the accrual of marks would be more appropriate (assuming that the accrual interval is less than one week). -------------------------- Message 9 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Thu May 13 17:31:52 1993 PDT From: Bakunin (#3553) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: Some comments about marking I'd like to correct a misperception I had, despite a close reading of the petition. It does call for a one-week expiration period for marks. -------------------------- Message 10 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sat May 15 21:43:56 1993 PDT From: PatGently (#37637) To: *Petition:Banishment (#43827) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: comparison of banish and marking Bakunin's @banish Lambda's @mark __________________ ___________________ 1-yr residency requirement no res. req. requires 30 players in 48 hrs. requires 10% of week's players, marks time out after a week 1st time: off for 1 wk. just plain off, but 2nd time: 3 weeks regain access if marks 3rd time: forever not maintained player using @banish is prompted @markers are anonymous, for reason. this, names, and time but anyone can see how many are recorded on a note. b/w marks someone has. no marking of person. no recording of cause. can't undo or counteract. can undo after five minutes. whitemarks counteract blackmarks. non-transferable transferable to a proxy or proxies. ____________________________________________________________________________ I think that basically covers the differences. If I've missed anything important, or have anything wrong, please anyone feel free to tell me. Personally, I don't think I like either proposal as it stands. Bakunin has told me he now favors a 6-month residency requirement, which I think is reasonable. I have no strong feelings about the number of players required, time limit, or amount of time off, as I think either proposal does okay on that. Bakunin's system with the notes is rather awkward; I'm not sure how it would work. Perhaps you could elaborate on that for us, Bak? Lambda's system with the marks showing up on the person seems more workable. I like the idea of reasons being recorded, but that might be too bloaty, I dunno. I definitely favor a system that has whitemarks or their equivalent; I think it's a very important safety. I also think proxies are a terrible idea and marks or banish votes should be non-transferable. That should cover it. Gently, Pat. -------------------------- Message 11 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sun May 16 23:29:47 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: PatGently (#37637), *Petition:Banishment (#43827), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: comparison of banish and marking Thanks to PatGently for that nice comparison chart. Like Pat, I think whitemarks are nice and proxies are not. I also prefer the idea of having black-marks take an accompanying explanation (as they do in Bak's proposal). I just don't know what to say about the punishment length. I think a one-week timeout is way too short, and it bugs me the same way as I already complained about in my reply to Bak's proposal. I think one week is barely enough time for people to catch their breath after something bad happening, and is ridiculously short as a sentence for anyone who does anything that I would consider prosecuting under this. Perhaps each marking should ask for a proposed punishment and it should toss out the lowest n (10, for example) suggestions, and then take the least of the remaining suggestions. So if everyone wanted someone gone for a year, then it would happen. And if they wanted less time, that would happen. Throwing out the low n would help to reduce the chance of friends trying to soften it. It won't protect the MOO from a gang of bleeding hearts who want to soften sentences across the board, though. -------------------------- Message 12 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sat May 22 00:40:52 1993 PDT From: Frand (#47) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: proxies I think the marking system is a good idea, and I like proxies. Here is a request. I will be able to see what marks of mine have been placed on others. I would also like to see who placed them. That makes it possible to hold proxies accountable; otherwise, if I have granted several proxies, they can act anonymously and I won't know who to praise or blame. This is so important that it should be stated in the petition. I would also like a quick way to undo any damage done by a wild proxy. For example, '@unmark proxy #1234' might remove all marks of mine made by the (former!) proxy #1234. This is just an implementation detail, though, and not important enough to write into the petition. -------------------------- Message 13 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sat May 22 01:24:03 1993 PDT From: Frand (#47) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: auto-marking The petition does not mention whether the marking verbs will be executable by other MOO verbs (+x) or executable only by typed commands (-x). If they are +x, players will be able to write verbs to automatically mark others. For example, I could have lists of friends and enemies, and every Thursday morning a verb would automatically plus-mark my friends and minus-mark my enemies. Or if I want visitors I could automatically plus-mark everyone who visits my home for at least five minutes, and minus-mark everyone who I @eject. (This might encourage only nasties to visit, but maybe those are the players I like.) If the marking verbs are -x, then the same things can be accomplished by a smart enough client program. So in a sense, the +/-x decision does not matter. But not everyone will have an auto-marking client, whereas every MOO programmer will be able to @copy auto-marking verbs, if not write them. Auto-marking might be considered good or bad. The question is important enough that Lambda might want to address it in the petition itself. The petition does say that the number of plus and minus marks a player has is public information. That means that, if I want, I can exclude from my home any player with more than, say, 10 minus marks. -------------------------- Message 14 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sat May 22 02:12:47 1993 PDT From: Frand (#47) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: proxy expiration I'm unsure why proxy authority is proposed to expire after one week. The petition says that proxy authority is for handling 'situations requiring immediate action.' For example, a large number of players might grant proxy to Public_Defender(#1234), who can then bury Bungle_Junior under a big pile of minus marks, without waiting to consult everybody. Or a group of friends might band together and declare, 'One for all and all for one!' But if proxy power lasts only as long as a mark lasts, then I expect that these organizations will not usually survive long after the crisis ends. There is not a crisis every week. If proxy power has to be granted anew each time a problem comes up, then it's no advantage; you are just as well off marking people yourself, and campaigning for your cause. When the country is invaded, we don't hold an election to choose the Commander in Chief; we have one prepared at all times, who can act immediately. Limiting the duration of proxy authority does have the good effect of encouraging people to re-examine their delegation of power. And it may help prevent excess concentration of power (Public_Defender(#1234) says, 'Sure, everyone trusts me, even the players who haven't been here in months. Why don't you @proxy me, or I'll banish you!'). But I think the expiration time needs to be longer. Of course, if people can auto-mark then I guess they can auto-proxy, and the whole point becomes moot. -------------------------- Message 15 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sat May 22 05:49:33 1993 PDT From: jerico (#34983) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) and Lambda (#50) Subject: close but no cigar! I've just read Lambda's idea, and i see just a couple of flaws i thought I'd mention: 1- I've been on the MOO for a fair time now, and have seen only a few players @toaded/@newted. so on the whole, it seems justice systems are neded rarely. Lambda's idea gives me the 'vision' of instant justice, people being blackmarked on a daily basis, just coz its so easy, and automatic. I think there should be some time delay between offence and punishment, to give the offender time to appologise, or for 'things' to cool off. 2- There seems to be no 'why?' in the system. Under the marking system, it seems possible that some noe with alot of proxy marking power could black mark me big time, with no more explanation than "its monday, and I'm not in the mood for this." 3- As i think some1 already mentioned, black marking may just become the next step up in a 'play fight' that gets out of hand. ie- you use the anti-social verbs. they reply. you use your plasma cannon, so do they. you cast a couple of spells. they do too. you think "OK matey cop this!" suddenly they're black marked. in such a way, black marking could easily become trivialised. However, there is hope for this black marking system. perhaps Lambda, if you got togeather with Grump, it could be combined with his Arbitrator idea, so that only an arbitrator could give you black marks. That way only the people involved in a dispute (plus the arbitrator) could cause some1's punishment, rather than having to rely on one sided flames and rumours. (coz i take it that in general, the witnesses to a crime, even in the living room, wouldn't amount to enough people to banish some1) to sum up, the black mark system seems a nice way of getting rid of unpopular people, with little thought to actual justice. it all seems too easy and in a sense, blind. ok, my little rattle over.... Jerico ------ -------------------------- Message 16 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Sun May 23 18:28:41 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: marking I've remembered a couple of reasons I disliked marking. The primary reason is the proxy rule; a popular player can easily become overpowerful through the use of proxying, and as a pervious post pointed out, it's easy to set up an automatic marking and/or proxying with the right equipment. The secondary reason is marking is too mechanistic. The human element is lost, which is why I support Grump's arbitration ballot. In any case, if marking becomes the rule, I will write a program to plus-mark everyone on the MOO whenever I log on, and I would encourage anyone who likes that idea to proxy me. -Xiombarg -------------------------- Message 17 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Tue May 25 19:46:49 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: S-box (#6866) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: A System of Collective Empowerment > Date: Tue May 25 05:26:19 1993 PDT > From: S-box (#6866) > To: Lambda (#50) > Subject: Re: A System of Collective Empowerment > > My only suggestion would be to count the number of "booted" due to marks > players in the total number of players connected within the marking period. > This procedure would tend to minimize the chance that players would use the > system to mark indiscriminately and effectively gives those who have been > booted due to marks some small voice in the process. I'm not sure what this means. It sounds like you mean that in counting `the number of players who have connected in the last week' (10% of which is the number of excess minus marks you need to boot someone) we should add in the number of people currently booted from the system via marks. I wouldn't have any objection to this (with a little care thrown in to ensure that folks aren't counted twice), but it doesn't seem to me to give those ousted people any `voice in the process' at all; it just makes it ever so very slightly more difficult to oust anyone else. In fact, I have a hard time imagining that it could ever make more than one or two marks difference in the threshold. Have I misunderstood you? -------------------------- Message 18 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed May 26 17:27:35 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Some responses My RL world has been pretty busy recently, so it's taken me a while to get around to reading what's been written here. Let me now take the time to respond to some of what's been said. First, in message 8 Bakunin says that he thinks that there should be a requirement that people who can mark others have been on LambdaMOO for some period of time, to try to ensure that they're `more emotionally invested in the community' and thus perhaps `less likely to abuse the mechanism'. I don't disagree with this analysis, but I think his suggestion of a six-month `seniority' is still too high. I would be entirely willing to stipulate a ONE-month waiting-period, or even two months in the face of a lot of pressure, but any more than that seems excessive to me. Someone who doesn't care about this community at all is unlikely to hang around for that long; there's no need to make them wait another 4-5 months to be recognized. In the same message, Bakunin says that `marking and proxy comprise two opposing philosophies: the capacity of an individual player to take action, and a mechanism to relinquish that right, creating more powerful players'. I disagree with this analysis. In no way does the granting of proxy authority `relinquish' any player's power, since they are still able to wield their own marks, can end that proxy authority at any time, and can tell whether or not that authority is being misused (in their own opinion). What the proxy feature provides is a mechanism for players to *choose* to aggregate their individual power; it provides flexibility to let players make their own decisions about how to wield their power, instead of forcing every player to be an island. I don't feel comfortable enforcing such an arbitrary restriction of political philosophy. Proxies may, indeed, concentrate power in the hands of a small class of individuals, but they will only do so if that is the will of the people; arguments against letting the people decide such matters for themselves strike me as paternalistic and condescending. Finally, that message of Bakunin's contains a couple of misunderstandings of the marking mechanism. Even when a player has granted proxy authority to many other people, s/he has only one mark to place, shared among the player and all of the proxies. There is no multiplication effect. Also, marks do not `accrue over an indefinitite period of time'; they expire after a week's time. This being so, Bakunin's suggestion that the threshold for banishment be `closer to 10% of the total connected players during the interval of the accrual of marks' is already satisfied. Well, this message has gotten longer than I expected, so I'll end this one and start another for the remainder of my responses. Lambda -------------------------- Message 19 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed May 26 18:22:08 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: More responses PatGently's handy comparison chart in message 10 looks fair and correct to me. Later in her message, though, she says `I also think proxies are a terrible idea' but doesn't give any reason why. Pat, or anyone who agrees with her, what don't you like about them? Pat and Mickey, perhaps among others, express a desire for written explanations to accompany minus marks. [Please note, they're not `black' and `white' marks any longer, not because I think that's insensitive but because it keeps me from having to listen to the complaints of others who *do* think so.] I have no objection to accompanying comments in principle, but I worry a bit about the quantity of text getting unworkable if a person is getting a *lot* of marks. How 'bout if markers (and why only minus markers?) were prompted for a one-line comment? If they have a lot more to say, they could make the one-line comment be a pointer to some longer message, say on *Social-Issues. With only this quantity of text, it might be reasonable to print it all to ousted people who attempt to connect, along with the relevant numbers. Mickey, in message 11, also says that he thinks that a one-week punishment period is too short. I don't think a weeks is as short as he does, but that doesn't matter much, because the punishment period is *not* set to one week. That's just how long marks last. The punishment lasts for as long as the requisite number of excess minus marks remain in effect. The punishment period can be much longer than a week if enough minus marks are renewed before they expire or much shorter if people either cancel minus marks or make enough counteracting plus marks. I like the flexibility and lack of additional mechanism in this approach much more than the more static and complicated system Mickey proposes. Frand, in his spate of messages beginning with number 12, makes a number of suggestions with which I wholeheartedly agree. In particular, I agree that it's important that each player be able to tell which proxy cast which marks. I also agree that the petition should mention explicitly whether or not what Frand calls `auto-marking' is to be allowed. It was my intent that player would have to manually type the commands that place or renew both marks and proxies, that the verbs to do this would *not* be callable from MOO code. Of course, Frand is right that some people will be able to program their clients to do this for them, but I don't see any way around this problem; making the verbs +x still won't even the playing field, since only those with programming ability will be able to take advantage of that fact. Frand asks in message 14 why proxy authority lasts only a week. As he surmised, the reason it expires is both to make people regularly re-examine their delegation of power and to keep people from acting on ancient proxies granted by inactive players. I could see raising the proxy expiration period from one to two weeks, but not much more. Players who aren't active at least that often probably don't have sufficient emotional investment in and current awareness of the community. Jerico makes several comments in message 15. He asks for `some time delay between offence and punishment'; this proposal *does* contain such a delay, since it will presumably take time to accrue the necessary marks to banish someone. He also fears that `someone with a lot of proxy power could [minus] mark me big time, with no more explanation than "it's Monday, and I'm not in the mood for this". This can happen even if markers are prompted for explanations. If it is the will of the people, then big proxy holders who do this will lose their proxy authorities; if it isn't, who is to say that something wrong has occurred? Finally, Jerico worries that marking will become trivialized, just another step in a `play fight'. I disagree, to the extent that such marks actually end up banishing someone; when a play fighter finds that s/he's really gotten rid of someone, they will realize that it's not `all in fun' and they'll either remove the marks or discover that they really did have reason to mark. Xiombarg, in message 16, says that the marking system is too mechanistic, that it loses the `human element'. I think that the human element is in this just as much as in the arbitration proposal, the same real people are making the decisions. The advantage to marking is that *more* people get to make the decision and so the outcome is far less subject to abuse. -------------------------- Message 20 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed May 26 22:49:28 1993 PDT From: Quo_Vadis (#53118) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: down with proxies I'd like to add my voice against proxies. I like the black/white mark part of this petition. I think it does a fair job at showing idiots that their behavior is not appreciated and it gives them a chance to learn from their mistakes. The only problem I can foresee is that a player who is only midly annoying but highly visible would get banned while very reprehensible behavior targeted at newbies might not attract the attention it deserves. All in all, I think the marking mecanism will work properly. However, proxies bother me a bit more... What happens if I give proxy to 2 players and they can't agree on the mark to put on a player? Will these 2 players engage in a marking war? For example, if I give proxy authority to Alice and Bob. Now Alice hates Target but Bob and Target get along very well. So Alice black marks Target, which cause my black mark to be tagged onto Target as well. Then Bob white marks him, reversing my mark. Alice could reinstate my mark 5 minutes later and so on and so on... Although some means of group behavior might be desirable, I don't believe the current suggested mecanism will work. As such, I don't see myself pushing this petition towards a vote as is. Perhaps the proxy part of the petition should be moved to a 2nd petition once the marking mecanism is accepted. -------------------------- Message 21 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Thu May 27 10:34:32 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: Quantum-Vacuum (#53118) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: down with proxies Quo_Vadis fears the possibility of a `marking war' between two people who share someone else's proxy. Yes, this is a possibility, but I don't see much of a down side to that eventuality. Eventually the two people will either get tired or else come to some agreement about the markee. -------------------------- Message 22 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Thu May 27 12:51:37 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Lambda (#50), Quantum-Vacuum (#53118), and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: down with proxies The downside is that neither `getting tired' nor `coming to some agreement about the markee' is my idea of justice. If I am ever accused of something, I want a trial. I want everyone to hear the same evidence. I want to know when it is over and definitively what the outcome is. I don't want to sit idly by while parties with varying degrees of information and energy duke it out until one or the other gives in. -------------------------- Message 23 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Thu May 27 22:53:09 1993 PDT From: PatGently (#37637) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: proxies 1.) Lambda, I am a *Spivak*. I am gender-neutral. My pronouns are e, em, eir, eirself. 2.) Okay, if having proxies doesn't multiply marking ability, that helps, but partly I don't trust it, and partly I just think it's unduly elaborate. I would much rather see a simpler, purer system, where people mark who they want, and can't have others do it for them. I don't see a need for extra layers of intrigue and complication. Actually, I see a need *not* to have complications, except insofar as they are necessary to place checks on speedy injustice. Gently, Pat. -------------------------- Message 24 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Mon Jun 21 19:51:37 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: marking Proxies fill me with visions of "MOO-Marshals" using their popularity as a stick to get more proxies. The one-week limit doesn't matter, either due to +x perms or client progs. Also, yes, humans do the voting, but with proxies they vote without consultation or knowing what happened. "I blackmarked WHO?" Also, while humans vote, they've limited in their action; the punishment doesn't neccessarily fit the crime. -Xi -------------------------- Message 25 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Tue Nov 2 17:36:46 1993 PST From: Beth (#56762) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: proxy I really can't see why someone else should have the right to decide how I feel. Even if I give them permission to vote for me, what if I don't agree, and I find out too late of how my proxy voted. Also, there are some pretty stupid people on here at times, who probably would give their proxy to some charismatic character and forget that this system exists. I can picture some users with a hundred or more proxies controlling who can participate on the Moo. I'd love to vote for this, but only if the proxy option is removed. -------------------------- Message 26 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Tue Nov 2 20:26:01 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Beth (#56762) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: proxy Note that proxies only last for one week, and must be renewed after that time in order to stay in effect. Thus, your scenario of stupid people giving their proxies to charismatic characters and then forgetting this system existed would not prevail: perhaps for one week this person could wield an extra little bit of power, but their influence would die out unless people continued to believe in them, in which case, perhaps they *are* worthy of such a following. As for what if you don't agree, well, don't give that person a proxy. Or, if you find out they've marked someone with your proxy, remove your proxy and mark the person the other way. Easy to fix. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 27 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed Nov 3 12:52:47 1993 PST From: Klaatu (#57052) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: I'm agin' it... A couple things about this petition disturb me. The most disturbing thing is that marks are anonymous. This is basically unjust. Anyone should have the right to know who his accusers are, and what he is being accused of. The second thing that I dislike is that there is no appeal mechanism. Someone who accumulates a sufficient number of marks is outta here, with no recourse. The third aspect that I dislike is that, as I read it, a person who has been banished because he has accumulated the required number of marks could effectively be banished indefinitely, if players continue to mark him while he is banished. This again seems unfair, especially since there is no mechanism for a person to appeal his banishment. The mechanism outlined in this petition is unfair and unjust, and I cannot support it. --Klaatu -------------------------- Message 28 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed Nov 3 13:44:35 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: Klaatu (#57052) and *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Re: I'm agin' it... > The second thing that I dislike is that there is no appeal > mechanism. Someone who accumulates a sufficient number of marks > is outta here, with no recourse. It takes a lot of (minus) marks to get kicked out. By the time you reach that point, you'll presumably _know_ you're pissing people off, and have had time to alter your behavior (or ask lots of people to defend you with plus marks). The time for appeal is before you're gone. > The third aspect that I dislike is that, as I read it, a person > who has been banished because he has accumulated the required > number of marks could effectively be banished indefinitely, if > players continue to mark him while he is banished. If a large number of players--keep in mind that this is not far from the number of signatures needed to bring a petition to ballot--think a certain user shouldn't be allowed to connect, and they all feel this strongly enough that they mark the user week after week, then it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that the user shouldn't be allowed to connect. If you agree (and I'm not saying that you do, or that I do) that exile is a suitable way to deal with "problem users", and that some kind of "vote" on such manners is more appropriate than, say, going through the arbitration system, then I really don't think this petition is so problematic. I really don't think this system lends itself to hasty and permanent decisions. I think you could make a good argument against me by pointing out that proxies are included in the system explicitly so that people can "choose to aggregate their power for swift action". A couple of months ago, I would have claimed that people won't be so blind as to give their marking authority away to others who are irresponsible; right now, I'm not sure I honestly believe that. By the way, you claimed a couple of times that the system proposed here is "unjust", and I think I agree with you. But I also don't think it's concerned with justice at all. It's offered as "a way to prevent people who are abusing or ignoring its social contract from bothering others", which doesn't sound like justice to me. -------------------------- Message 29 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed Nov 3 14:32:15 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: [Klaatu (#57052): Re: I'm agin' it...] Date: Wed Nov 3 14:00:34 1993 PST From: Klaatu (#57052) To: Joe (#2612) Subject: Re: I'm agin' it... I'm excerpting from Joe's last post: > It takes a lot of (minus) marks to get kicked out. By the time > you reach that point, you'll presumably _know_ you're pissing > people off, and have had time to alter your behavior (or ask lots > of people to defend you with plus marks). The time for appeal is > before you're gone. > With the proxy mechanism, it's not necessarily true that a person would have a long time to appeal. If one or a couple people have accumulated large numbers of proxies, a player may be locked out in a short period of time--maybe even too short to change anyone's mind. (I guess this is what you allude to later in your post, about a good counter-argument.) > > If a large number of players--keep in mind that this is not far > from the number of signatures needed to bring a petition to > ballot--think a certain user shouldn't be allowed to connect, and > they all feel this strongly enough that they mark the user week > after week, then it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that the user > shouldn't be allowed to connect. > The human race has repeatedly demonstrated that large groups of humans don't necessarily make good decisions. I have some qualms about the current system, too, whereby people can be @toaded by ballot--but that at least requires a majority of the voting MOO public, and the whole process is much more lengthy and open than the proposed marking system. > > By the way, you claimed a couple of times that the system proposed > here is "unjust", and I think I agree with you. But I also don't > think it's concerned with justice at all. It's offered as "a way > to prevent people who are abusing or ignoring its social contract > from bothering others", which doesn't sound like justice to me. The petition itself doesn't mention justice, but it does provide a system by which people can redress supposed wrongs, which sounds a whole lot like a system of justice to me. --Klaatu -------------------------- Message 30 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed Nov 3 14:36:41 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Justice > The petition itself doesn't mention justice, but it does provide a > system by which people can redress supposed wrongs, which sounds a > whole lot like a system of justice to me. I'm going to try not to repeat myself a whole lot on this petition list, so this'll be the last time for this point. The petition provides a way to prevent people who are abusing or ignoring LambdaMOO's undefined social contract from bothering others. This is not redressing wrongs, this is getting rid of people who bother us. Unjust, sure. But I don't read it as an attempt at justice. Lambda, of course, may disagree with me. --JF, thinking about Job -------------------------- Message 31 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Mon Nov 15 15:01:59 1993 PST From: Sick (#41057) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) take out the proxies and lower the required number of marks to 5% of everyone connected in the past week, and i'll go for it. sick. -------------------------- Message 32 on *Petition:Marking (#41509): Date: Wed Dec 8 12:43:36 1993 PST From: dr (#7003) To: *Petition:Marking (#41509) Subject: Tyranny of the Majority I'm sure you've heard that saying before. Anyone ever see 'The Oxbow Incident'? While their solution to a supposed (but incorrectly assigned) wrong was more permanent than the one here proposed (unless auto-marking and power brokering become widespread, which is not precluded by the mechanism here), the principle is exactly the same. Mohandis Ghandi: "Freedom is meaningless without the freedom to make mistakes." Joe notes that the social contract is 'undefined'. But the preface of this petition states its mission as: "A way to prevent people who are abusing or ignoring the social contract from bothering others." I agree with Joe, thus, this petition's goal makes little sense to me. At any rate, I will indulge in a 'willing suspension of disbelief' and suppose that there was such a contract. Let's see what we can eradicate in terms of 'bad behaviour'. Song lyric: "One man's trash is another man's treasure." The best thing we have going for us here is diversity. People from all over the world, different backgrounds, different ideas, different notions of what is proper or acceptable. The worst thing we could possibly do is start a large, MOO-wide competition to try to dilute or weed out 'strange' or 'offensive' behaviour...that is not freedom, and democratic weeding is not justice or freedom-promoting. You can learn just as much when confronted with an attitude you don't approve of, perhaps much MORE than when surrounded by conformity and homogeneous idea. In message 18 Lambda types: "I don't feel comfortable enforcing such a arbitrary restriction on political philosophy.", yet this proposal is nothing BUT an arbitrary restriction on political (and personal) philosophy. Very strange. Frank Herbert: "Real boats rock." We will know that the Lambda vessel is sinking into mediocrity when it ceases to rock...when there is no more friction between players, no more conflicting ideas meeting each other in this most unusual of forums. Silencing diversity, even for short periods, teaches us nothing but a preference for silence. Silence == death, I say. You can continue to argue about the fine points of this petition, whether it is systematic and coherent unto itself, prone to abuse, or whatever. But even were it perfectly written, its premise remains perfectly wrong for Lambda MOO's diverse social groups and attitudes. --darkrider --------------------------