21–30 of 217 posts
It's Black Mirror already.
no, a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia. and we already live in it. giving citizens a way to speak up about potential abuses is in no way harmful
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people driving shitboxes (or any other crime) will give unfavorable ratings at a higher rate than people who get cited for other crimes? If Officer Karen has a terrible rating because he's constantly enforcing unpopular laws nobody cares about to an extent people deem unreasonable resulting in "man, that's bullshit" reactions from the people being ticketed then it will show in the aggregate stats and…
It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles. If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. Thi…
I and my coworkers can choose what tickets to grab out of the queue. Sure I could game it and only take easy ones but my boss would figure it out sooner or later. Salesmen can try and avoid customers that look like they might be a PITA, they mostly don't. It's really not a problem in practice.
>If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters.
Why is that the "right thing"? The cops should be serving and protecting the people of the jurisdiction that employs them. And they should be enforcing the law as a means to this end.
The "potentially negative" encounters here are enforcement of laws that are considered unreasonable by the public. You're damn right I don't want the cops enforcing a state law on weed, or anything, when they know that a greater fraction of the locals consider said law unreasonable and would just give them a 0/5 for it.
>This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules.
They already deal with this stuff. Adding numbers and records doesn't make the problem different or worse.
Hmmm should I let an unroadworthy car endanger someone's life or turn a blind eye. What about my impeccable 5 star rating?
I think their heart is in the right place (officers should have direct and transparent reputations to people). But in order to implement this "correctly", you need to go one step further into a dangerous territory: the ratings that an officer receives should be weighted by the rating of the person who rated them. Absolute scumbags shouldn't be able to hurt reputations in quite the same way as upstanding people. If yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "scumbags" most likely know the cops at their best and worst. Rating a cop is relative as they provides a wide ranges of services. It's all relative.
Which is why their rating is still counted, but its biased by what society thinks of the person doing the rating. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of better here. If ratings are something people want to do, you have to bias ratings with additional context, otherwise there is no mechanism to help separate ratings from honest and dishonest people.
One example of this is "voter fraud". It is possible to commit voter fraud, and so certain parties want strong identity guarantees to vote. But voter fraud isn't happening in practice, and stringent ID requirements actually suppress minority votes.
It is better to implement the simplest possible system first, observe it, and fix problems later as needed, after careful analysis of the running system.
I think their heart is in the right place (officers should have direct and transparent reputations to people). But in order to implement this "correctly", you need to go one step further into a dangerous territory: the ratings that an officer receives should be weighted by the rating of the person who rated them. Absolute scumbags shouldn't be able to hurt reputations in quite the same way as upstanding people. If yo…
I think their heart is in the right place (officers should have direct and transparent reputations to people). But in order to implement this "correctly", you need to go one step further into a dangerous territory: the ratings that an officer receives should be weighted by the rating of the person who rated them. Absolute scumbags shouldn't be able to hurt reputations in quite the same way as upstanding people. If yo…
Other way around imo. How a cop treats someone they view as a "scumbag" is a lot more illustrative and important than how they treat those they view as "upstanding people." I don't think the system described in the article is good either, but this isn't why. A big part of the problem with the current policing system is that cops treat some groups completely differently from how they treat others. "Upstanding" is as g…
I think their heart is in the right place (officers should have direct and transparent reputations to people). But in order to implement this "correctly", you need to go one step further into a dangerous territory: the ratings that an officer receives should be weighted by the rating of the person who rated them. Absolute scumbags shouldn't be able to hurt reputations in quite the same way as upstanding people. If yo…
Other way around imo. How a cop treats someone they view as a "scumbag" is a lot more illustrative and important than how they treat those they view as "upstanding people." I don't think the system described in the article is good either, but this isn't why. A big part of the problem with the current policing system is that cops treat some groups completely differently from how they treat others. "Upstanding" is as g…
Why?
> A big part of the problem with the current policing system is that cops treat some groups completely differently from how they treat others.
And what are those groups?