5 ms·

Trust with accountability and respect seems to go a long way some times but not others. Anyone have a theory why this system worked so effectively but other sy

by daenz 7y ago

Trust with accountability and respect seems to go a long way some times but not others. Anyone have a theory why this system worked so effectively but other systems involving trust don't?

username90 7y ago
Trust works well if you have decent people. Exactly what makes people decent is hard to say, but it is not unthinkable that students who got into Cambridge are a bit more decent than average.
- ReggieJJJ 7y ago
  Careful, you are skirting wrongthink, citizen.
- Bjartr 7y ago
  Or, are at least more likely to go for the long con than the smash & grab.
- alimw 7y ago
  Well getting into Cambridge probably indicates some degree of respect for humanity's body of work to date. That's a pretty narrow definition of decency though.
SkyBelow 7y ago
I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist that required a person to submit an application and wait to be approved, messages were rare. Only one or two a week. When we swapped to invite only, we never had the message go off. Not once from what I remember. As we swapped between the three states (in an attempt to maintain a certain server population level), the pattern was kept up. The lower the cost to get in, the more people who violated trust. The higher the price, the less people who violated trust. When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > griefer trap Seems like a compelling idea. Related: Microsoft are looking at using AI to detect abusive in-game chat. [0] > When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust. This approach hasn't worked for Facebook, for whatever reason. Perhaps Facebook triggers the 'road rage' mentality more than gaming does. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725
  - alliao 7y ago
    It wouldn't work for facebook because the goals are not aligned, whereas the goal of minecraft is simple; play the damn thing!
  - r00fus 7y ago
    Facebook's bottom line depends on stats like MAU where it's in their interest to accept fake users as real ones. Plus, they were never invite-only (or at least have not had that model for a long time).
- dwyerm 7y ago
  I've been pondering the same economics on car-, bike- and scooter- shares. I'd love to know if Car2Go's ridiculous little SMART cars were treated better or worse than their Benz replacements. I wonder if Lime's electric bikes get shoved off the pier less than Ofo's cheapest ones.
cylicbob 7y ago
It is clearly the qualities of the participants that allows this to work out at such a wild unsecured risk. The group and individual personal characteristics of the participant cohort make up the dark matter of why this system can function without disaster. I know that goes against what people want to believe that we are all the same, but fact of the matter is that most people are in fact not at all the same outside of a confirmation bias bubble that people often are not even aware they are in. Exhibit A are the several liberals that have been slaughtered while proving that muslims are not violent by hitchhiking or hiking through muslim lands. It is easy enough of a thing to test and prove, even without putting the actual art at risk. You could just reproduce fake art and provide it to various different groups of people, including at various costs, to see what happens. It would surely show either that we are actually all the same, or that we are not all the same. Cue the subsequent rationalization and excuse making when the results contradict the cult doctrine. I find that an extremely interesting study. The more screaming and preemptive hedging and excuse making you encounter, the more you know you will find heretical results.
- monadgonad 7y ago
  > Exhibit A are the several liberals that have been slaughtered while proving that muslims are not violent by hitchhiking or hiking through muslim lands. Yet far fewer in number than the amount of muslims who've been shot dead by Christians and white supremacists even just within the last year, yet it's interesting that "muslims are violent" is the theory you latch on to. Why's that? > It would surely show either that we are actually all the same, or that we are not all the same. Cue the subsequent rationalization and excuse making when the results contradict the cult doctrine. "Liberals" don't believe we are all the same. Such an experiment would show the differences in culture, socialisation and upbringing that "liberals" very much believe in. Your ignorance of such things, or dismissal of them as "excuse making", shows that you lack the nuance needed to properly assess such a study.
pm215 7y ago
I think the major factors are: * the scheme is not widely known/advertised among the student body, so it's closer to word-of-mouth recommendations than mass anonymous access. (Note that there are over 12,000 undergrads but they only lend out 100 or so pieces -- it's a self-selected 1% or so of students) * there is a deposit plus the hassle factor of actually going to collect the piece, so you're not going to do it unless you actually wanted to display the art; this is a minor barrier to entry but it makes a difference I think * students are easy to find and easy to impose penalties on in the event of actual malice, because you can just ask their college to intervene * they take some obvious precautions to avoid major risk -- no lending of very valuable pieces, no lending of sculptures (which I guess to be at higher risk of being knocked over and accidentally damaged compared to pictures hung on a wall)

by daenz 7y ago

Trust with accountability and respect seems to go a long way some times but not others. Anyone have a theory why this system worked so effectively but other systems involving trust don't?

username90 7y ago

Trust works well if you have decent people. Exactly what makes people decent is hard to say, but it is not unthinkable that students who got into Cambridge are a bit more decent than average.

ReggieJJJ 7y ago
Careful, you are skirting wrongthink, citizen.
Bjartr 7y ago
Or, are at least more likely to go for the long con than the smash & grab.
alimw 7y ago
Well getting into Cambridge probably indicates some degree of respect for humanity's body of work to date. That's a pretty narrow definition of decency though.

SkyBelow 7y ago

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry. I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement. When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it. When we swapped to a whitelist that required a person to submit an application and wait to be approved, messages were rare. Only one or two a week. When we swapped to invite only, we never had the message go off. Not once from what I remember. As we swapped between the three states (in an attempt to maintain a certain server population level), the pattern was kept up. The lower the cost to get in, the more people who violated trust. The higher the price, the less people who violated trust. When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> griefer trap Seems like a compelling idea. Related: Microsoft are looking at using AI to detect abusive in-game chat. [0] > When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust. This approach hasn't worked for Facebook, for whatever reason. Perhaps Facebook triggers the 'road rage' mentality more than gaming does. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50054725
- alliao 7y ago
  It wouldn't work for facebook because the goals are not aligned, whereas the goal of minecraft is simple; play the damn thing!
- r00fus 7y ago
  Facebook's bottom line depends on stats like MAU where it's in their interest to accept fake users as real ones. Plus, they were never invite-only (or at least have not had that model for a long time).
dwyerm 7y ago
I've been pondering the same economics on car-, bike- and scooter- shares. I'd love to know if Car2Go's ridiculous little SMART cars were treated better or worse than their Benz replacements. I wonder if Lime's electric bikes get shoved off the pier less than Ofo's cheapest ones.

cylicbob 7y ago

It is clearly the qualities of the participants that allows this to work out at such a wild unsecured risk. The group and individual personal characteristics of the participant cohort make up the dark matter of why this system can function without disaster. I know that goes against what people want to believe that we are all the same, but fact of the matter is that most people are in fact not at all the same outside of a confirmation bias bubble that people often are not even aware they are in. Exhibit A are the several liberals that have been slaughtered while proving that muslims are not violent by hitchhiking or hiking through muslim lands. It is easy enough of a thing to test and prove, even without putting the actual art at risk. You could just reproduce fake art and provide it to various different groups of people, including at various costs, to see what happens. It would surely show either that we are actually all the same, or that we are not all the same. Cue the subsequent rationalization and excuse making when the results contradict the cult doctrine. I find that an extremely interesting study. The more screaming and preemptive hedging and excuse making you encounter, the more you know you will find heretical results.

monadgonad 7y ago
> Exhibit A are the several liberals that have been slaughtered while proving that muslims are not violent by hitchhiking or hiking through muslim lands. Yet far fewer in number than the amount of muslims who've been shot dead by Christians and white supremacists even just within the last year, yet it's interesting that "muslims are violent" is the theory you latch on to. Why's that? > It would surely show either that we are actually all the same, or that we are not all the same. Cue the subsequent rationalization and excuse making when the results contradict the cult doctrine. "Liberals" don't believe we are all the same. Such an experiment would show the differences in culture, socialisation and upbringing that "liberals" very much believe in. Your ignorance of such things, or dismissal of them as "excuse making", shows that you lack the nuance needed to properly assess such a study.

pm215 7y ago

I think the major factors are: * the scheme is not widely known/advertised among the student body, so it's closer to word-of-mouth recommendations than mass anonymous access. (Note that there are over 12,000 undergrads but they only lend out 100 or so pieces -- it's a self-selected 1% or so of students) * there is a deposit plus the hassle factor of actually going to collect the piece, so you're not going to do it unless you actually wanted to display the art; this is a minor barrier to entry but it makes a difference I think * students are easy to find and easy to impose penalties on in the event of actual malice, because you can just ask their college to intervene * they take some obvious precautions to avoid major risk -- no lending of very valuable pieces, no lending of sculptures (which I guess to be at higher risk of being knocked over and accidentally damaged compared to pictures hung on a wall)