[MUD-Dev] Player run reputation system

[John Hopson]

J C Lawrence <claw at kanga.nu> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:34:11 -0400 Geoffrey A MacDougall
> <GMacDougall at poptronik.com> wrote:
>> JC Lawrence wrote:
>>> Timothy Dang wrote:

>>> Please go read the Advogato design papers , and the (I think two
>>> now, maybe three) rounds of discussion there on how well it has
>>> worked out and the perceived problems.

>>> Then come back.

>> I've read them, and I'll reluctantly admit that I can't see
>> through the math.

> You're not the only one to request a more friendly explanation.

I'll take a swing at summing it up in a paragraph or two, though I'm
certainly not an expert on the matter.  (Actually though, it might
be interesting to take a look at the kind of trust-network-like
solutions animals come up with to the problem.  Ants identifying
each other by scent, status hierarchies in chimps, alpha status in
wolves...  Sigh, as If I didn't have enough neat ideas to think
about. :)

When I mention figures, I'm talking about the figures in
http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html .  These figures aren't
labelled, so I'm just counting them from the top.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the Advogato system, trust is a fluid, trickling down from one
node (user) to another.  A small number of individuals, known
formally as "Seeds" or jocularly as "Sun Gods", are inherently
trusted at the highest level.  All users (including the seed users)
rate each other, and these ratings are used to calculate a network
(see figure 1) of nodes radiating outwards from the Seed.  The Seed
users are then given the most trust, those they've rated highly
next, and so on out to the farthest node, a long way out from the
seed.  Trust is a measure of how much you are respected by those who
the seeds respect, with that respect being passed along, diminishing
as it goes.

All trust flows outwards from the Seeds and new nodes/users start
with no trust, two factors which combine to make the system
resistant to invasion by twinks.  Consider the case where a group of
new users colonize the game and begin rating each other very highly.
(Figure 4, under the heading "Security Proof") Because they start
with nothing and those who have trust are presumed to have the
judgement not to trust the twinks, their ratings are meaningless.
They can rate each other however they like, but until the system
lets them in, until trusted users rate them positively, they have no
effect.  The important feature here is that it doesn't matter how
many of the twinks there are, their ratings can only gain meaning to
the degree that they are respected by the community at large.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I think the Advogato system, which very impressive and apparently
effective for what they're doing, is not suitable for muds as is.
As I understand it, the code involves having all nodes in a list in
real time, arranging them in a space, then assigning trust.  This
works fine for the 400 something users Advogato has, but I suspect
it would choke on the thousands or tens of thousands required for a
MMPOG.

My concern is that we're not actually talking about "Player run
reputation systems" in this thread; We're talking about systems
where the code uses player-ratings to come up with a reputation
score that meets the same criteria as the rest of the code (not
obviously abusable, objective, impartial, etc).  I believe this is a
wrong turn.  We really don't want to be in the position of flagging
a player as trustworthy or untrustworthy, because if we're wrong,
the players are pissed at us.  What we want is for players to be
able to see what other players think of someone.  We want players to
be completely responsible for the system, and for that system to
reflect what the players think is important about each other.

As of now, I think the best solution is to have multiple rating
systems and let the players choose which rating system they want to
see.  Let's say I run a good-aligned group, the Knights of Niceness.
I submit a rating system to the game (-1 to 1, naughty, neutral,
nice) and set it so my fellow Knights are all allowed to rate people
on this system.  Anyone can set their preferences so they see on
other players the ratings we give them.  If they don't like our
system, they're free to complain to Knights or use another system.
Our name becomes a brand, letting people know what they get when
they use our rating system.

Another group might let anyone rate, or it might be just "Bob's
ratings".  It would also be possible to put a couple coded systems,
such as number of coded crimes committed, etc.  Players could even
use multiple systems and see a composite rating.

The nice thing about this is it takes all the burden off the game
and its administrators.  Don't like the rating system?  Create and
promote your own.  Wish there were a system rating OOC roleplaying
ability player rather than IC criminality?  Go for it.  The system
becomes whatever the players want/need it to be.

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev