[46026] in Cypherpunks
Re: Reputation capital: FIBS case study
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Cohen)
Thu Dec 28 10:05:42 1995
From: fc@all.net (Fred Cohen)
To: weidai@eskimo.com (Wei Dai)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 09:14:32 -0500 (EST)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951228011912.27043B-100000@eskimo.com> from "Wei Dai" at Dec 28, 95 01:31:18 am
> On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Lou Poppler wrote:
>
> > The thorniest problem in our reputation economy continues to be the
> > case of the player who drops out of a match when clearly losing, to avoid
> > the decrement of his rating number (based on match results only, not on
> > individual games). [......stuff deleted...] The best defense we have
> > found against the match dropper is complaining in the newsgroup.
>
> It seems to me the easiest way to solve this problem is to list for each
> player the number of games he dropped and didn't finish along with his
> rating and experience. Why go for elaborate social solutions when a
> simple technical solution exists?
>
> Wei Dai
It seems to me that not finishing a game is the same as knocking over
the board. It's a loss for the player waiting to move, and a non-game
for the other player. This should solve the not-finishing-a-game
problem in short order.
For the problem of playing a fake unrated player, try variations on this
scheme. Track the players each player plays and reevaluate all players
scores in relative terms. To get a rating, players must engage in games
with enough other players to form a valid statistical basis - at least
100 games with rated players for 10% accuracy.
Start with provisional ratings in the 1-10 range based on
comparrison with other players regardless of who.
As players play other fully rated players, add a temporary
rating based on relative performance and post both relative
and 1-10 ratings.
When players reach 100 games within the rated group, they get
an official rating.
-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
