How do you feel about the concept of a reputation based society?

How do you feel about the concept of a reputation based society?

elaborate.

Suppose that you had a reputation score that was aggregated based on your actions within the community. That reputation score would determine what sort of resources within that community that you would have access to and be allowed to have.

China is starting this

It's originally an anarchistic idea. Seems like China is exploring non-capitalistic alternatives.

You keep tracing circles and moving goalposts.Where does reputation score come from.

How would abuse be monitored and handled.
How would cult of personalities and scapegoats be avoided or handled.
How would peoples lives being ruined over a hiccup be avoided.

Please bundle your theory with logistics.

Nobody has moved any goalposts user.


It's like a credit score assessed within that community. It would probably come from a record of social media, favors that you've done for others, work that you've done for/within that community, and contributions to it. It would need to be crowdsourced in order to avoid Orwellian shit.


It'd be investigated like financial fraud is today.


Inherent problem within the system, I've thought about this too. I'm thinking about mechanisms to avoid this.


There'd have to be a quick way to dispute or resolve errors.


I haven't built infrastructure for it yet.

It's hyper authoritarian capitalism
It's basically a point system tied to your credit score
They are always experimenting with techniques of social control

IN A WORLD WHERE CHANGING YOUR FACEBOOK PROFILE PICTURE ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING

Yeah, the way the Chinese are implementing it is extremely authoritarian.

Sounds normalfag as fuck.

I don't think your quality of life should suffer if you happen to have an abrasive personality. Seems a like creepy social engineering.

That sort of penalty would have to be controlled for in a good system.

You can't assume it will be a good system, especially the first time around. Anytime you implement a social system, you are going to have unexpected problems.

Unexpected, yes. But we're anticipating this. So during any trial runs the fuckery is going to come from something we don't anticipate.

Basically, real life would become CSGO competitive matchmaking.

Think about that for a little bit.

That analogy seems almost completely imperfect except for superficial similarities.

That also sounds like how it would work.

Your "reputation" is too general.
It requires for said community to have set morals and other spooks.

So, who sets the spooks and who changes them?

What if you get more rep by being rated high on sex appeal and having quality sex with lesser men or women?

What if you can't improve your rep UNLESS you do this?

What if there are no favours to be made? Are you then doomed to starve?

Get your foundations first.

Stirner is garbage.


Direct or indirect democracy.


Some pleasure commune might decide to do just that. I doubt it'd be stable though.


Doesn't sound like something that'd work outside of some small orgy-commune.


I don't think it'd be that big of an issue, the economy would literally have to be dead and nobody like you. It's something to address though.

Sounds pretty great

t. Reddit

So, if 51% of the people say "not having tattoos is a rep +", people with tattoos get less rep?

Also, how is it ensured that it doesn't end up in mobs voting for demagoges?

It'd depend on a lot of things. People might decide that isn't even a criteria.


Cults of personality around charismatic individuals are probably the biggest problem with the system. Safeguards would have to be built in to prevent reputation abuse.

Now that you mention that, how do we prevent rep from becoming currency?

😈🔥Hell😈🔥 on 🌎earth🌎 tbh 👌😂

You can't print it out and exchange it. Groups could game the system, but you'd have to actively investigate patterns of potential fraud and randomly audit to prevent that.

Currency, AKA those with the most rep are most respected and get more rep simply by having high rep.

Like, you know.. YT subs.

You'd probably have to have a rep floor built in that moves up with a soft rep ceiling. To avoid celebrated people inflating rep to render everyone else irrelevant.

A society where YT stars and celebrities have the most power, sounds great.

The problem is that it would most likely be based on some arbitrary definition of "good" and "bad".
Sounds awful.

So, it's capitalism, instead of currency we have rep and we have rep ceiling like we could have a wealth ceiling…

Oh well.. reformism…

No.. WAIT! If they rise enough they can then influence the people to let them GET THE CEILING HIGHER!

Like copyright today!

Guys, what if instead we build a society where everyone is anonymous….

Except that it's not Capitalism because nobody owns the means of production privately.

a society that allows accumulation of wealth will always revert to capitalism

Hey, we'll no longer have to be bitches for money, now we'll have to be bitches for likes. Prepare to post whatever popular hashtag or meme issue is trending on Twitter or Facebook.

I don't know what this has to do with communism since in your system popularity becomes the currency, and I don't know what you're smoking either because you provide no theory at all for your system, so it seems like something you made up while high on weed.

Suddenly, this looks like a possible future for humanity…
Suddenly, a cyberpunk dystopia looks like a paradise!

👎🏻

This is literally the opposite of what communism should be.

Instead of "to each according to his need" we have "to each according to what everyone thinks of your autistic weeb ass"

But reputation =/= wealth.

Except it's "to each according to his need in accordance to what they've done for the community".

Listen dude, I like eclipse phase and I like the idea of a reputation economy, but rep is not currency. Not even ingame, it doesn't function like currency

I tought about this but it will require too much from people to acomplish it.

...

I'd rather the whole world burn in nuclear fire

To reward people, yes. To punish people resource wise, no because at a certain point they would stop caring and just commit crime.

cancer

This. I wish I could upvote you more than once le good gentlesir ;)))