i will fight every single person suggesting that a "reputation score" is the way to fix abuse
have you been on reddit ever
reputation scores are a way to instate a supergroup of people who have made their way to the top and will never ever come down
reputation scores are a way to put down people who have been branded as "bad" by some unknown entity down even further
reputation scores are basically literally How To Create A Bourgeoisie 101

people with a high reputation score will "always be right" and people with a low reputation score are always "bad"

it's just a number to tell you what to think of someone

having reputation scores is a fucking black mirror episode
like im not making a comparison of what it's like
there's literally a black mirror episode about it, iirc
also: it's federated. someone can just fucking set the reputation score to send to others if they own their own instance???
@b if your idea is a black mirror episode it means its not even "bad" its just a punchline
@b it's the first episode even.
@b Can confirm. Watched the Black Mirror episode.
@b and they all tend to have "rich get richer" dynamics
@b remember klout? :-(
@oddhack Technically, #klout still exists, though they deemphasized scores. But #Klouchebag is gone, sadly enough. Used it while working as a community manager to clue in my boss.
@b Mostly, it's ridiculously easy to game such a system.
@b right??? it's like, "reputation scores" are a way to institutionalize abuse.
@b but Peeple was the best social networking idea ever.
@b would just link them to http://buildingreputation.com/ and ask if they have a design that properly addresses issues raised in these works
@b stackoverflow, hacker news, digg...
@pnathan And none of those have issues?
@b they all have the issue of MUST GET IMAGINARY INTERNET POINTS PLZ NOW.
@pnathan Exactly.
Also, I've heard bad things about Hacker News and...well, nothing at all about Digg, but here's a good article about SO. https://hackernoon.com/the-decline-of-stack-overflow-7cb69faa575d

@b hacker news is irregular. some topics attract the toxic. some topics have super legit threads. It has gotten better over the past year.

I have a fairly high rep on SO (26K) - the system is just not good. It empowers time-spent over quality, and first movers over late movers. I rarely use it these days. SO also has weird weird moderation/management practices (or had. it's been a few years).

@b I actually had my website be #1 for most of a day on HN a week or two ago?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13979002

I was actually highly impressed by the discourse.

But any topic touching gender, race, etc, is like a *magnet* for toxicity: I don't even go there.

@b Thinking more: this is actually an exercise in applied polysci. there are Admins, who *own* the server. Moderators are chosen through a diversity of means, but generally there is no process to fire them: they are enfeuded to the admin. Sometimes there are lower levels of mod, but they too are enfeuded to admins. Sometimes within the domain, you can have submods enfeuded in practice to mods. Regardless, the populace life in fiefs and have no recourse without rioting.