X-Message-Number: 32072 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:28:15 -0400 From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: CryoNet Rating System and Message Content Suppression In following up on Mike Perry's comments regarding Melody Maxim's most recent message, Msg #32066, please note that its contents do not show up in the digest and instead only the notification <<< POSTER'S REPUTATION TOO LOW >>> Therefore, it seems that a number of CryoNet subscribers are using the rating system to squelch publication of Melody Maxim's messages in the daily digest. As an example, the following is a message from Melody to CryoNet in mid September that was "filtered from the daily CryoNet digest because the poster's reputation was too low." Additionally, this message has itself been been given a total "flamebait" rating of 6.00 - scored as "flamebait" by at least 7 individuals, depending on exactly how Kevin's algorithm for "reputation" works. (There is no explanation given on Kevin's page http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/reputation.cgi?help=y of how multiples of different ratings are combined to arrive at the poster reputation, nor of how a "flamebait" score of 6.0 can even be achieved since 6.0 is not a multiple of 0.8.) X-Message-Number: 31992 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:19:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Melody%20Maxim < <mailto:>> Subject: Owada - CAS The cryo-orgs should thoroughly investigate this technology, and it would be encouraging if they would pay for an outside evaluation. I don't believe many, (if any), of the existing cryonics personnel have the knowledge and/or experience required, to produce a proper, non-biased evaluation, and the majority of people working in cryonics a vested interest in continuing on the course they are on, (regardless of how very little progress has been made). Melody Maxim ---------------EOM------------------------- Now, it is very likely that many people who subscribe to CryoNet do not like what Melody wrote above, but "flamebait"??! (Definition per wikipedia: "[A] message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list , with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait Similar definition at urbandictionary - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flamebait ) The other scores were given for "excellent", "good" and "normal" - together these last 3 all total 6.00 also; a "normal" coming from me. The immediately prior message from Melody on Aug 27, "Alcor's Response Team and Competence" (http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=31904 - a response to Robert Newport's Message re. Russell Chaney) *was* included in the digest and received the following ratings: Abuse 0.33 Flamebait 5.33 Offtopic 0.33 Again, those who scored this message obviously do not like what she had to say, but will not post a public message stating clearly what and why. (Note that once again nothing on Kevin's "Reputation Calculation Algorithm" page indicates how such rating numbers are achieved.) BTW the "good", informative" and "interesting" ratings, now showing, are mine - just added today after reading the message again. (But again Kevin's page presents me with no information about just how this will affect Melody's overall "reputation" rating.) I see this type of message scoring as an attempt to suppress (censor) the writer's ideas and opinions rather than engage her in reasoned discussion, by pointing out what the objector considers erroneous and why. For this rating system to be of true value, the raters need to be identified, by at least the identity they use to receive messages (so that the censors themselves can be judged and possibly censored by others). In the case of Melody Maxim, she does not post often (only 6 times since 8/27 including 10/14) - not like "Phil Ossifur" who has inundated CryoNet at times - and much of what she has to say is worth considering (at the least) by those who are actual cryonicists (or just "cryonics-friendly" as she considers herself), and then discussed in a reasoned manner. I have rarely used the message rating system but apparently in order to not see someone's messages excluded because numerous others don't like what s/he says, to the degree of rating it "flamebait" or "poor - and I think the messages are worthy of reading - I will need to go this route, unless and until Kevin institutes identification by raters, which as I explained above should enable these extreme raters to be themselves negatively preferenced in one way or another. Lastly, my current "reputation" (prior to publication of this message) is 0.54 based on 15 messages to CryoNet since February 2006. (Only 7 were given any ratings. Surely non-rated messages should contribute to a poster's "reputation" as "acceptable" since they at least were not objectionable. However, I do not see this in Kevin's system.) One message, #30399 in Feb 2008, received a "flamebait" rating of 3.00 (and an "Interesting" of 1.00). In reading it over again, and in conjunction with the above observations regarding Melody's messages, it is obvious that some subscribers to CryoNet do not want to see *any* criticism of any individual or organization related to cryonics. This is the sign of "true believers" - "my country (cryonics organization) right or wrong" - not reasoned thinkers and discussants. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32072