CryoNet #32438 - #32440

CryoNet - Mon 1 Mar 2010

    #32438: Re: Continuing Message Suppression with CryoNet's Rating Syst... [David Stodolsky]
    #32439: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard [David Stodolsky]
    #32440: Re: Cryonics Anonymity [swb1948]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32438%2D32440

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32438
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Continuing Message Suppression with CryoNet's Rating Syst...
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:00:41 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 27 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Why do you continue to ignore the "vote" of those who do not rate
> messages at all?

The major problem here is that with a mail system it is impossible to  
know whether someone has read a message. In the publication model I  
presented earlier, this isn't a problem, since the main role of  
feedback is to determine who should be invited to contribute the next  
message in a thread.


> The fact that someone has not thought it worth their
> time to register a specific rating of a message, even though they get
> the digest daily, is worth something in the algorithm - I do not see
> that this happens. This failure in my estimation distorts the entire
> system and reduces the value of CryoNet to me, and likely to many  
> others.

What we need to assess the performance of the current Rating System is  
some participation statistics. If the participation rate is low, that  
means that incentives for participation are not working and then only  
those who want to censor are affecting the ratings.

I performed a random sample of 10 of the 32XX range of CryoNet  
messages. Of these, 2 were my own, so I couldn't see any ratings.  
There was only 1 rating contributed in response to the remaining 8  
messages. We can conclude from this that the Rating System is not  
being used significantly at this time, except by those who wish to  
censor. This explains why we are seeing censorship.

The quick fix for this is to limit rating to a few people who are  
thought to be impartial. Ideally, they would be willing to regularly  
evaluate messages just before the Digest is sent out. This fix will  
not improve the quality of messages, but it will stop censorship and  
spammers, etc.




dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32438

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32439
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:33:52 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

On 28 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

>
> CryoNet wrote:
>>
>> Message #32424
>> From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard
>> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:12:27 +0100
>> References: <[email protected]>
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>>
>>> Being anonymous about
>>> cryonics is *not* protection for a signed-up cryonicist but rather  
>>> an
>>> opportunity for relatives who do not agree to wreak havoc with those
>>> plans.
>>
>> As long as cryonics is regarded as a cult or as quackery by the
>> mainstream, being associated with it can result in being banned from
>> certain organizations. Therefore, such public association could have
>> negative consequences for one's career.
>
> Why should a person who is a cryonicist because s/he does *not*  
> think it
> is a cult or quackery - one who is not simply signed up because of hir
> spouse's or significant other's desire for cyronics preservation -
> really want to be associated with those who hold such a view? And if a
> cryonicist is good in hir chosen work field and/or avocation(s), a
> person whose skills and/or views are respected, then it is highly  
> likely
> that s/he will be listened to should the topic of cryonics come up in
> discussion.

There is a saying in politics: "The Best is the enemy of the Good".  
For example, in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W.  
Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which  
led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. The  
discussion here is not about an ideal state of the World, but a  
practical political problem. A person is less likely to get to publish  
their work and be someone who's views are respected, if they suffer  
what we see as unjust discrimination. That, unfortunately, is the  
current state of the World. Given the current attention paid to  
questions of public opinion and political risk by the Movement, it is  
likely to remain so for a long time. You propose "Social Preferencing"  
as the solution to this problem and a study could be conducted to test  
whether this is actually a workable approach to improving the  
situation. Until such a study is done, Social Preferencing remains an  
untested hypothesis along with a vast number of other utopian schemes  
to solve the World's problems.

The practical problem that started this discussion is how to avoid  
interference with suspension protocols. Someone who is not in a  
position to risk their livelihood or reputation for the cryonics ideal  
can start signing their public messages with a secure pseudonym right  
now. If the key is on deposit with a cryonics organization, then their  
true views can be proven in any court. Since this proof would also be  
available to the family and the public, it is likely that a court case  
would be discouraged. So, there is no reason for this not to be used  
at the moment. In fact, if you read my paper, Consensus Journals, you  
would be aware that this type of identity protection is actually a  
necessary feature of a scientific communication system, if it is to  
avoid the many problems seen today, including the problem of unfair  
discrimination that we are concerned with here.


dss

David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32439

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32440
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cryonics Anonymity
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:12:13 -0500
From: [email protected]

----------MB_8CC87041FF13B10_17F4_21214_webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com


Re: Message #32435
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:22:48 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32424 Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster...

I have to agree with Kitty on this.  Cryonics gains greatly when it is discussed *openly* by intelligent, reasonable, friendly, successful people.  I have been open about my cryonics involvement for 33 years now, and because my co-workers and relatives do not see me generally as an unthinking, crazy person, they have asked respectful questions about cryonics.  Many of them state that they see the practice of cryonics as potentially reasonable, (although they seem no more likely to sign up than anyone else.)

But it is not necessary that we persuade everyone else to become cryonicists.  We make gains every time we can change a potentially hostile person into a friendly one; every time we change an indifferent person into a cooperative one (e.g., who is willing to sell us products and services); and every time we influence some other intelligent person to say at a party, "You know, I've met some of those cryonicists and they're pretty reasonable people, not nutty.  Heck, it might even work."

Certainly "openness" is not the only thing I need to do to protect my suspension arrangements.  But it will be very difficult for my family to claim I changed my mind at the last moment after several million people (via the interviews I have done over the years) have heard or read me state my support of cryonics and my hope that this technology will work for us.

For those cryonicists who are NOT intelligent, sane, or friendly -- go ahead and stay silent.  Just forget I said anything.  <grin>

Steve Bridge



Why should a person who is a cryonicist because s/he does *not* think it 
is a cult or quackery - one who is not simply signed up because of hir 
spouse's or significant other's desire for cyronics preservation - 
really want to be associated with those who hold such a view? And if a 
cryonicist is good in hir chosen work field and/or avocation(s), a 
person whose skills and/or views are respected, then it is highly likely 
that s/he will be listened to should the topic of cryonics come up in 
discussion.





Why should a person who is a cryonicist because s/he does *not* think it 
is a cult or quackery - one who is not simply signed up because of hir 
spouse's or significant other's desire for cyronics preservation - 
really want to be associated with those who hold such a view? And if a 
cryonicist is good in hir chosen work field and/or avocation(s), a 
person whose skills and/or views are respected, then it is highly likely 
that s/he will be listened to should the topic of cryonics come up in 
discussion.



----------MB_8CC87041FF13B10_17F4_21214_webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32440

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************