4 ms·

It's not "the townsfolk" who would give the officer a rating in that situation, it's the person getting pulled over for a dangerous vehicle. "The townsfolk" ver

by daenz 4y ago

It's not "the townsfolk" who would give the officer a rating in that situation, it's the person getting pulled over for a dangerous vehicle. "The townsfolk" very likely want dangerous cars stopped, but that likely won't be reflected in any ratings by the people pulled over for dangerous vehicles, so it's biased. It's naive to assume the thought process is "well, I was breaking the law, but the officer was professional, so 5/5"

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Why do you think people driving shitboxes (or any other crime) will give unfavorable ratings at a higher rate than people who get cited for other crimes? If Officer Karen has a terrible rating because he's constantly enforcing unpopular laws nobody cares about to an extent people deem unreasonable resulting in "man, that's bullshit" reactions from the people being ticketed then it will show in the aggregate stats and the chief will hopefully say tell him to knock it off and do something that has a higher ratio of public safety to pissing people off. Literally every trade where customers rate performance has had to grapple with this. It's a solved problem. The real value add is using the ratings to compare members of the team, different types of interactions, etc, etc. Anyone who's ever managed or worked from a ticketing system should be familiar with this.
- overrun11 4y ago
  It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles. If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles. I and my coworkers can choose what tickets to grab out of the queue. Sure I could game it and only take easy ones but my boss would figure it out sooner or later. Salesmen can try and avoid customers that look like they might be a PITA, they mostly don't. It's really not a problem in practice. >If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. Why is that the "right thing"? The cops should be serving and protecting the people of the jurisdiction that employs them. And they should be enforcing the law as a means to this end. The "potentially negative" encounters here are enforcement of laws that are considered unreasonable by the public. You're damn right I don't want the cops enforcing a state law on weed, or anything, when they know that a greater fraction of the locals consider said law unreasonable and would just give them a 0/5 for it. >This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules. They already deal with this stuff. Adding numbers and records doesn't make the problem different or worse.
    - seti0Cha 4y ago
      > I and my coworkers can choose what tickets to grab out of the queue. Sure I could game it and only take easy ones but my boss would figure it out sooner or later. Salesmen can try and avoid customers that look like they might be a PITA, they mostly don't. It's really not a problem in practice when someone Your boss has a list of all tickets. There is no list of all possible police interventions so it's going to be way less obvious when a policeman does it. Also salesmen avoiding undesirable customers absolutely is a problem. You just don't happen to be the type they ignore (e.g. obviously poor people) > You're damn right I don't want the cops enforcing a state law on weed, or anything, when they know that a greater fraction of the locals consider said law unreasonable and would just give them a 0/5 for it. It's not about what a greater fraction of the locals want though. It's about what the particular person they are contemplating enforcing a law against wants.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  > If Officer Karen has a terrible rating because he's enforcing unpopular laws nobody cares about to an extent people deem unreasonable For most laws, the person breaking it will be the one that deem enforcement unreasonable. Someone speeding say the speed limit is unreasonably low. Someone driving a shitbox will think car regulations are unnecessary. Someone smoking weed will think drug laws are terrible. The problem is that these peoples are the ones that will give the rating and they won't go after the community consensus. > Literally every trade where customers rate performance has had to grapple with this. It's a solved problem. The problem is that police interactions are in nearly every case due to a bad situation. The "best case" is that you need to report a crime, but the police will need to enforce a law and the subject will usually not like this.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>""The townsfolk" very likely want dangerous cars stopped, but that likely won't be reflected in any ratings by the people pulled over for dangerous vehicles, so it's biased" Exactly, if I get pulled over and issued a ticket for having a burnt out brake light, I'm not likely to actively thank and highly approve of the officer who just issued me a $100+ dollar ticket. The officer was well within the law to do so, and other citizens are safer after I get the light fixed, but emotionally I'm sure as heck going to be upset and want a little bit of passive-aggressive revenge. "Why did you pull me over and give me a ticket when I see much more dangerous cars on the road. Shouldn't you be focusing on bigger crimes?" Maybe I'd leave a good review if the officer let me off with a warning, but officers would realize this and that would incentivize leniency. Not necessarily bad, but that could have unintended consequences.

by daenz 4y ago

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

Why do you think people driving shitboxes (or any other crime) will give unfavorable ratings at a higher rate than people who get cited for other crimes? If Officer Karen has a terrible rating because he's constantly enforcing unpopular laws nobody cares about to an extent people deem unreasonable resulting in "man, that's bullshit" reactions from the people being ticketed then it will show in the aggregate stats and the chief will hopefully say tell him to knock it off and do something that has a higher ratio of public safety to pissing people off. Literally every trade where customers rate performance has had to grapple with this. It's a solved problem. The real value add is using the ratings to compare members of the team, different types of interactions, etc, etc. Anyone who's ever managed or worked from a ticketing system should be familiar with this.

overrun11 4y ago
It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles. If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles. I and my coworkers can choose what tickets to grab out of the queue. Sure I could game it and only take easy ones but my boss would figure it out sooner or later. Salesmen can try and avoid customers that look like they might be a PITA, they mostly don't. It's really not a problem in practice. >If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. Why is that the "right thing"? The cops should be serving and protecting the people of the jurisdiction that employs them. And they should be enforcing the law as a means to this end. The "potentially negative" encounters here are enforcement of laws that are considered unreasonable by the public. You're damn right I don't want the cops enforcing a state law on weed, or anything, when they know that a greater fraction of the locals consider said law unreasonable and would just give them a 0/5 for it. >This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules. They already deal with this stuff. Adding numbers and records doesn't make the problem different or worse.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    > I and my coworkers can choose what tickets to grab out of the queue. Sure I could game it and only take easy ones but my boss would figure it out sooner or later. Salesmen can try and avoid customers that look like they might be a PITA, they mostly don't. It's really not a problem in practice when someone Your boss has a list of all tickets. There is no list of all possible police interventions so it's going to be way less obvious when a policeman does it. Also salesmen avoiding undesirable customers absolutely is a problem. You just don't happen to be the type they ignore (e.g. obviously poor people) > You're damn right I don't want the cops enforcing a state law on weed, or anything, when they know that a greater fraction of the locals consider said law unreasonable and would just give them a 0/5 for it. It's not about what a greater fraction of the locals want though. It's about what the particular person they are contemplating enforcing a law against wants.
Sebb767 4y ago
> If Officer Karen has a terrible rating because he's enforcing unpopular laws nobody cares about to an extent people deem unreasonable For most laws, the person breaking it will be the one that deem enforcement unreasonable. Someone speeding say the speed limit is unreasonably low. Someone driving a shitbox will think car regulations are unnecessary. Someone smoking weed will think drug laws are terrible. The problem is that these peoples are the ones that will give the rating and they won't go after the community consensus. > Literally every trade where customers rate performance has had to grapple with this. It's a solved problem. The problem is that police interactions are in nearly every case due to a bad situation. The "best case" is that you need to report a crime, but the police will need to enforce a law and the subject will usually not like this.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

>""The townsfolk" very likely want dangerous cars stopped, but that likely won't be reflected in any ratings by the people pulled over for dangerous vehicles, so it's biased" Exactly, if I get pulled over and issued a ticket for having a burnt out brake light, I'm not likely to actively thank and highly approve of the officer who just issued me a $100+ dollar ticket. The officer was well within the law to do so, and other citizens are safer after I get the light fixed, but emotionally I'm sure as heck going to be upset and want a little bit of passive-aggressive revenge. "Why did you pull me over and give me a ticket when I see much more dangerous cars on the road. Shouldn't you be focusing on bigger crimes?" Maybe I'd leave a good review if the officer let me off with a warning, but officers would realize this and that would incentivize leniency. Not necessarily bad, but that could have unintended consequences.