X-Message-Number: 32477 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:21:47 -0700 From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: Message Ratings (Still) being Abused --------------020307060201030408080306 Some individuals are still attempting to keep certain posters from being read in the CryoNet digest by using "Flamebait" and "Abuse" in ratings of messages. These 2 rating types appear to be able to either override other scores or, by themselves, send a poster into filtered "Siberia". I'm baffled by what criteria the parties (?just 1? I still can't figure out Kevin's algorithm) decided that 3 of Luke Parrish's posts deserved a rating of "Abuse" 1.0 - other than wanting to see Luke Parrish's posts not included in the Digest. I don't know anything about Luke Parrish at all, but I do conclude that these posts of his are *not* abusive of this mail list. It appears that as a result of the 1.0 Abuse rating on Luke Parrish's first post, his 4th message (Dec 9 2009, #32199) was filtered out of the Digest. The other ratings showing for the first 3 messages were either not there at the time or were (by Kevin's algorithm) insufficient to balance out an Abuse rating of 1.0. Luke apparently got back into the digest after that (others went back and scored him sufficiently positively) and all was well until #32211, #32297 got a "Flamebait" of 1.0 each (?!) and #32388 & #32402 get an "Abuse" of 1.0 each (??!!) So when Luke submitted message #32475 it was filtered out of the Digest for 3/10/2010 ...... And these last were even after my message (#32342) about rating abuse directed towards Melody Maxim....?!?... (I've now gone back to Luke's messages and rated them highly.) And "speaking" of Melody, her 3/8/2010 post # 32461 still got a "Flamebait" scoring of 2.0 (along with other scores of Excellent, Good, Informative & Interesting) - http://cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32461 I see *nothing* in her post (or any of Luke's either) that is "with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait ). What I do see is that certain CryoNet mail list recipients are doing their darndest to keep Melody's messages - and it appears Luke Parrish's too - out of the digest. The continued anonymity of all these ratings perpetuates this abuse of ratings - and almost certainly even encourages such ratings from those who would likely never post a well thought out and well written critique of anyone's writings. This situation does not reflect well on CryoNet as a (supposed) forum for the discussion of the subjects that are part of or effect the cryopreservation of humans, eg cryonics. I will send this message to Kevin Brown also (separately), with the request that he reexamine his algorithm for abuse potential - something I am confident that he never intended but is happening even with this actuality having been brought to the forefront recently. I am urging that others who see this use of the rating system as detrimental to the purposes of CryoNet - and even abusive - to send their own message to Kevin, or simply forward this one to him with a personal note. Send to "" with "cryonics" in the subject line. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting --------------020307060201030408080306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32477