On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 11:36 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: > On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 10:56 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > Andre, I'm really upset about your prevarication > > Thanks for getting personal again (after "My claims make a lot of sense > and you are aware of it") instead of concentrating on arguments, no > matter how over the top (uhm, "Chinese rating systems") they are. :)
Hi, you claim that a comparison with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Scoring_mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#Reward_and_punishment is overdone, but it isn't. "MIT Professor Kevin Slavin has described business research into gamification as flawed and misleading for those unfamiliar with gaming. Heather Chaplin, writing in Slate, describes gamification as "an allegedly populist idea that actually benefits corporate interests over those of ordinary people"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#Criticism It's the same mechanism, with the same goal. At the moment the consequences are disastrous for those living a country like China. For users of GNOME mailing lists the consequences of moving to the gamification approach is by far not such disastrous, as the >Chinese credit system, but I never claimed something like this. I was talking about an "approach" ("Chinese alike approach"). This is not over the top. In the end market leaders, GNOME belongs to this category, try to manipulate in the same way. The Internet is kind of an international country and this oddity just started, it might lead to something even more worse, than the Social Credit System of China is today. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
