LevelPlayingField

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

FairProcess demands a LevelPlayingField. The term originates with ball sports where a slope gives the home team a gravitational advantage. In OnlineCommunities, playing fields are not level. Contributors are judged by their name and their style of writing. Poor grammar and spelling telegraphs low social standing in MeatSpace. Some communities apply differential treatment to contributors using British English as opposed to American English. In rare cases, other regionalisms may have similar effects, though they are usually difficult to detect in writing unless used deliberately.

People writing under names that are clearly pseudonymous are treated differently than those whose names are plausable. In the UseRealNames discussion, a real name may reveal more or less depending on fame an uniqueness. A celebrity or public figure faces different issues than an a working man in this regard. Unique surnames reveal more than common surnames.

The domain portion of an email address has connotations as well. chaz313@aol.com is unlikely to be taken as seriously as someone with a more prestigious address. (cf. SemanticsOfIdentity)

Fair process assumes an unlevel playing field, hence the need for a fair process. A level playing field is already fair (in theory). While it's true that certain irrelevant qualities are falsely generalized to move people up and down the PeckingOrder, like domain addresses as mentioned or gender, as social animals humans will always form a PeckingOrder. There is no such thing as a level-playing field as although we want to give everyone equal opportunity, we will not all get equal rewards. Since the substance of the rewards is needed to provide equal opportunity, the system is highly circular or mutually constructed. Consider that it costs capital to provide public education to enable citizens to become functioning entrepreneurs who will accrue capital which will be taxed to provide public education (cf. SocialCapitalism). Systems like socialism and communism that focus too heavily on providing equal rewards are wrong because they make life unbearable, boring, meaningless, and oppressive.

Social power is also a reward for being charismatic or valuable or well known or the same coloured skin. History has shown that it is necessary to use social power to maintain equality. We need the philosopher kings who are powerful yet make the world a better place (cf. BenevolentDictator). But we do not need to entrust one individual with this social power, since we can rather diffuse it through an institution whose internal processes are visible and rationalizable (cf. OpenProcess) unlike the singular and opaque mind of a malfeasant monarch (cf. GodKing). Democracies attempt to do this. Anarchy and libertarianism fail because although they initially level the playing field, the rewards of the PeckingOrder eventually build to the point where they can significantly make the opportunities inequal without the strong systemic checks and balances to counteract these social forces. One needs TheCollective solution to counter the TheIndividual's success so that other individuals may succeed as well in the future. -- SunirShah

LevelPlayingField

Discussion