Painting - L'escradille Monte, 1948 Étienne Beothy
Behavior. There's an interesting fissure between our locations, transactions, and trust metric recipes. In so many instances we share space with other people even where there isn't transaction in between. Yet a space in which things happen. On the other hand transaction usually must account for its commercial value first, although it's ever more intimate with users and leveraged by social capital. What does this mean?
Whereas good behavior is conducive - even neutrally, there's typically have a problem felicitating it in a recordable manner, while lacking means to necessarily gamify bad behavior's caveats. Through all the shared instances that aren't dealing with a two-person commerce - be it a train or bus trip, a walk to and fro a pharmacy or eatery.
A person once took the care to pick up my dropped gloves, run up an escalator and catch up with me close to an outer exit and give me my gloves. This surprised me, and I wish there were a more enduring live 'thank you'.
I thought later it could be interesting to hold account of seconds. A dynamic behavior log?
In the case above I transacted (lunch). It was from a precise location (compositionality -
from home to eatery via train).
Isn't it - that our behavior: without a shared transaction, is after-all a trust factor needed in anonymity?
How could this be recorded?
How relevant are those results?
What would underpin procedural fairness in reporting cases?
Think of the carbon credit market as a metaphor. Your company's manufacturing plants, buildings, or supply chain may have credits because of the upheld and verified green standards. This allows you two things: easily transacting with other sharp-witted companies, or selling your credits to firms needing to offset their CO2 emissions. Think of those emissions as the 'bad' behaviors. Some may need to acquire points from a well-behaved person to begin to transact with a person of some standards. Especially if not accountable in their anonymity for compatible conduct (value wise).
IoT (in smart growing SmartCity hubs - Kansas, Chicago, Boston etc) and all the budding apps in the sharing economy would join in some form (data partnerships, collaborative analytics). Sensors can measure air quality, rainfall, and on public infrastructure like smart lights, have cameras.
In terms of recording, location and verified transactions would be the first touchstones. The app would accept the input of whether you're walking (however, it seems a smarter sidewalk is needed), within a train or bus, then from the usually static information you provide (Address) can assess the frequency of your moving (origins) and transaction between them. Hence even as a waitress a person could incur great feedback serving both professionally (if the app developed a rate my server formal side) and socially (others can see that in and out of professional contexts, travels, hobbies, experimental culture that she is either kind, honest and clever or neutral. A win for her and who she'll transact with on newer apps).
This could impact three other layers:
- Localism. Any purely local users won't benefit much from it. Most Uber drivers aren't your nextdoor neighbors, other services likewise leverage variety in volume).
- Neutrality as a plus with proof of stake across locations. Would still remain a state that's not an obstacle, and this data can be useful in some settings. Think of an agent (person) who carries out functions courteously and fast without many words, no feedback isn't bad feedback.
- Even if a person didn't join the app and say behaves perversely several times, many are incentivized to join and report with more details (locations etc), until between users it's clear who it is (a template can be drawn for unbiased describing) after several encounters in different locations.
We'd like to guess that a few parameters like full name, address, education or quantified metrics are enough to not be surprised.
At all levels unadulterated, and 'immoral' behavior are encountered and lack dynamic accreditation system besides diverting narratives.
By the time one lowers their attention's guard to any befogging random event, the task of monitoring interpretation is imminent. In bridging the offline and online, live thanking can have a more transitive value than recommending; while sottish whims made impersonal should have a cost to neutrality - the currency. While keeping guessing at a minimum, many would enjoy using the veracity of their character points and functions to log into other platforms, sell them to those in need of credibility (for their behavior), and besides commerce or law, paint the notion of private moral reliability.