I did not at all deserve 1's and you haven't established otherwise, but setting that aside for a moment; then at best what alstergren did was a function of self interest, done to get his overall rating improved, not a matter of "niceness". So it kind of irks me when someone (especially alstergreen himself, which he has several times) paints alstergreen as some kind of saint for offering mutual ratings withdrawing when he left 1's.
Because ratings are such a subjective topic it's boiled down to this. How are we to determine what is worthy of 1s?
Being in several court cases, you learn that the devil is in the details. The fact is:
a) You can't prove that alstergren rated you for a purpose of blackmail as intent. Suppose he figured you deserved a higher rating... then he would have rated you higher and still proposed to mutually remove ratings if you so chose. Is this likely? No... if he rated you highly, you might choose to keep your 3s for him because you would be satisfied for the rating you got from him.
You can't prove that he didn't feel you deserved 1s. Because you can't prove that, you can't claim blackmail as the sole purpose of his rating.
b) This is where public perception comes in. You can't paint someone as a saint if they are so blatantly exposed to a jury of their peers. Similarly, you can't paint a saint as a devil to a jury of their peers because the jury knows enough to make a decision for themselves. When it comes to an online forum, that decision is displayed by the posts you read. In this case, alstergren is clearly seen in a bit of a better light. He was mature about it... he didn't complain or whine. He displayed the "consideration" to remove ratings you felt you didn't deserve when he didn't have to.
I also note that noone made a case for establishing ratings blackmail being good for the site. Though I clearly made a case for it being very bad for the site.
Blackmail is such a strong word. Think about it as an incentive. More specifically think about it like this (taking it to it's barest roots):
- You left a rating for alstergren and alstergren left a rating for you.
- You are both entitled to your opinions and allowed to leave ratings you feel are appropriate for others.
- You both disagreed with the ratings left for you by the other party.
- You felt you were in the right in leaving him 3s. He felt you were in the wrong.
(lets avoid speculation and deal in fact as far as we can know for sure)
- He felt he was right in leaving you 1s. You felt he was in the wrong.
- He proposed mutually withdrawing both ratings.
Perhaps you took this to be a sign that he didn't believe in his rating at all. Perhaps it's the case but you can't prove it to be so. You wanted to be able to sustain your rating for him while having his rating of you removed.
Blackmail is: "If you don't do (Event A) then I will do (event B)"
Incentive is: "(Event A) and (Event B) have occured. If you fix (Event A) I can fix (Event B).
The problem is that how do you know if a rating is lower then it would be otherwise in order to create leverage to get another rating removed? It is a slippery slope simply because ratings is so subjective and we can not know another persons mind.
Thank you hun! That is a perfect description of the situation. You can't know because of how subjective it is. You can't know what's in the other person's mind... so why was this whole thing forced into discussion? Because you made a charge... you made an accusation without being able to know his mind. You made an accusation saying he was wrong in something that is so subjective that you can't prove he was wrong.
In theory, if what he did is as you say... then he would be wrong, but you can't prove it and sense you took the attacking role in making the accusation... the burden of proof would have been on you to display why alstergren was in the wrong. In theory, if he did it only for leverage, it would be wrong. If he felt you deserved the rating however... it would be a-o-k... so it would be on you to prove that his rating wasn't sincere.
I just don't think you could prove it. Everyone knows murder is wrong, but if prosecution comes to my client with a bad case or without the right witnesses/evidence to address this case... I, in doing my job well (unlike the prosecution) will stop them from putting a murderer in jail. They, in not having the right substance for the particular case, will be responsable for letting a murderer go back on the street.
Jasmine
