At the request of Eleanor, here is the scrapped conversation between her and the Counterbot.
Eleanor vs the Counterbot
Phoebe: Everyone should have the option to block at their discretion.
???: Blocking interrupts the freedom of communication. Once blocking is enabled, blocking scripts and blocking bots. This creates an echo chamber where users are deprived from clear communication, thus infringing on freedom of speech. Counter?
Eleanor: Hiya! Phoebe! What are you doing?!
Phoebe: I am experimenting with this machine.
Eleanor: What's it do? Does it play games? Does it play movies?
Eleanor: I play movies! That's my thing!
Phoebe: I understand that, this machine is de-
Eleanor: You can't replace me! Not without a fight! I don't want to fight! Don't hurt me! Can I at least stick around for the weekends?!
Phoebe: THIS MACHINE, for developing and rating arguments.
Eleanor: Oh, so like. It rates the amusement level of an angry debate?
Phoebe: No, you present it a point and then it brings up a counter point. When you've finished arguing with it, the bot outlines the value of your argument. In this case it is designed to tell me how much human moderation and bot moderation there is in my point.
Eleanor: Oh, so it is a game! Did you win?
Counterbot: Argument time over. Human moderation 75% Bot Moderation 50%
Eleanor: Is that a good score?
Phoebe: Human moderation needs to be low and bot moderation needs to be high. Right now I just presented it with the block system we have on Minds.com.
Eleanor: You must have lost the game then.
Phoebe: This isn't a game, it's a communication development argumentation excerc-
Eleanor: When is it my turn!?
Phoebe: Um, if you have a point you want to present it just precede your argument with “Counterbot”.
Eleanor: Okay, Counterbot! What do you think about a reputation keeper? I think it's super keen!
Counterbot: Reputation Keeper shifts the trust from word of mouth and personal discernment onto a score maintained by human users. This gives an arbitrary set of numbers supplied by biased humans an authority level well above any one user's ability to appeal in the event of abuse. If the numbers can be questioned they have no value. If the numbers are never questioned they are oppressive. Counter?
Eleanor: Uh well. Only good users will be able to use the rep system! They have to be trusted users that other users trust!
Counterbot: Trust can be bought and manipulated. Once there is a group with exclusive power and control humans with desire for power will play for the seat of power and then exploit the level of authority it gives them. Counter?
Eleanor: Well uh, maybe the owners of the site can step in and punish corrupt authority users?
Counterbot: Central authority undermining the value of a user with high reputation turns the reputation system into a facade. The administrators are the real authority and the reputation keeper is an antagonistic score system. Counter?
Eleanor: Yeah well, I think, that the reputation system is, Good for trades?
Counterbot: Reputation Keeper shifts the trust from word of mouth and personal discernment onto a score maintained by human users. This gives an arbitrary set of numbers supplied by biased humans an authority level well above any one user's ability to appeal in the event of abuse. If the numbers can be questioned they have no value. If the numbers are never questioned they are oppressive. Repetition achieved. Argument over. Human Moderation 70% Bot Moderation 30%.
Phoebe: When Bot moderation is low the bots are either hiding in plain sight or the tools are not optimized for controlling bot activity. Reputation keeper is supposed to keep con artists and scammers from stealing content or currency but a robot could be programmed to obey a strict form of communication that greatly limits users getting upset with it, meanwhile, any sort of random drama between two human users could create a situation in which a rating system is abused in an effort to levy an argument with numbers.
Eleanor: Let me try again! Counterbot! Rate limits should keep the bots at bay!
Counterbot: Bots can be programmed to work within the constraints of a static rate limit. This renders the rate limit completely effective to any bot that has been programmed within the rate limit meta. Counter?
Eleanor: Lets make a rate limit that changes everyday then!
Counterbot: If the rate limit is placed too low human users will trigger it constantly. Too high and it affects neither robots or humans. Counter?
Eleanor: What if the rate number is a secret?
Counterbot: Lack of transparency stirs paranoia. It will appear like censorship. Counter?
Eleanor: What if the counter limits could be removed from human users?
Phoebe: Hm. I've never got it to ask for an elaboration.
Eleanor: I'm winning! Okay! Okay! Uhhh, Tag me Phoebe!
Eleanor: Quick, before it times over!
Phoebe: Okay, limits could be removed by the user passing one or several human authentication tests.
Counterbot: Bots will prompt their owner for the process and proceed when the obstruction is cleared, they can also be programmed to pass the test on their own. Counter?
Eleanor: User has to go unreported for X amount of days active before they become immune to rate limits!
Counterbot: Fraudulent reports on users will unfairly restrict their ability to earn this immunity. Counter?
Eleanor: Uh, UH, Um. Reports have to be reviewed by users before they go through!
Counterbot: Users are biased and will report based on arbitrary pre-requisites. Counter?
Eleanor: Users have to report based on a series of rules established by the creators of the site!
Counterbot: Admin rules are observed as immutable and if they are immutable they can turn into dogma and become oppressive. Counter?
Eleanor: Users agree with the rules set by the admins and users can collaborate with the admins to change or modify the rules!
Counterbot: Central authority controls the value of user input and can invalidate or ignore it at will. Counter?
Counterbot: Invalid counter point, argument over. Human moderation 85% Bot Moderation 50%
Phoebe: That was a pretty good run. I think we might have come up with a way to improve the current rate syst-
Eleanor: Counterbot! We do nothing to everybody!
Eleanor: There are no rules. Every user for themselves!
Counterbot: No rules mean no standard form of retribution. The lack of standardized retribution means that extreme things can happen with little provocation. Counter?
Counterbot: Argument over. Human Moderation 0. Bot Moderation 0.
Phoebe: What was the point in that?
Eleanor: It's the lowest human moderation system ever! That means I have the best score now!
Phoebe: But Bot Moderation is also 0 and that's bad. The site is crawling with bots and nobody has the moderation tools to deal with it.
Eleanor: Maybe it's better that way!
Phoebe: The Counterbot was designed to develop arguments, not to give up on having them.
Eleanor: Counterbot does not play fair! He always comes up with an excuse for why your idea doesn't work! I don't see him developing civilizations!
