3 ms·
Well, let's start with a reasonably understood system: HN karma. Behaviors that follow guidelines are upvoted; behaviors that violate them are downvoted. Guidel
by saraid216 12y ago
Well, let's start with a reasonably understood system: HN karma. Behaviors that follow guidelines are upvoted; behaviors that violate them are downvoted. Guidelines are implicitly created (customary law) by edge-case upvotes and downvotes. What does it not address that your system would need to?
(This is not a rhetorical question; it would help me understand what you're trying to achieve.)
- fiatjaf 12y agoYou've got the point. I imagine that HN karma is a system very close to the ideal. At first, it would only one things: an interface to the real world. I mean, people breaching contracts and people fulfilling them in the real world should be thrown into this system, and the real world people (which should not need to make a special type of digital contract or something, because they already have their own contracts that should be valid) must be able to use this database of ratings to make decisions.
- fiatjaf 12y agoMore could/should be added, because the real world is complex. For an ideal world we would probably need a framework that would support: support for courts/judges (human parties that could issue their verdict on cases and compete for cases), a system for proving real world identities (could be done by trusted human parties, maybe the same courts/judges, that could operate on the real world also, seeking the people outside the system), long written text descriptions of cases and testimonies, a search engine. I don't know. What do you think? Another major problem is the State, that would probably try to make this system illegal if it becomes popular. This shouldn't be a problem for the system itself, because it could work on a peer-to-peer basis, but to the parties involved in the cases, if their names are made public.