Every Chinese citizen will soon have a score based on how they live and conform

[Monoriu]

I don't know how they can make this truly mandatory.  Lots of people don't use the internet at all.  Retirees for example.  They may not even have internet access.  Besides, I am not sure if a credit rating is truly the best way to implement this.  The thing with the Chinese government is that they keep everything secret.  Nobody knows for sure what's going on.  A credit rating is transparent.  You can check what your score is.  If you can check it, you can game the system.  This isn't their way.  If they implement a scoring system, they'll keep the numbers secret.  So that they won't have to answer for it, and they can change your score at will.

In that context, is gaming the system a bad thing?  If everyone starts singing the praises of the Communist Party to get a better score, then isn't it what they want?

The point is there is no reason to let you know what the party thinks about you.  The party is not going to warn you that you have done something wrong, or to give you feedback in the form of an open score.  You are supposed to figure out what the higher ups like or don't like, and act accordingly.  Why release the score at all? 

[DGuller]

No I think Mono is absolutely right. Arbitrary power is the best power for keeping people in line. Otherwise people who have a high score might think they have 'credit' built up and are safe or something.

You can set execution triggers not just based on overall scores, but also based on quick changes.

[DGuller]

The point is there is no reason to let you know what the party thinks about you.  The party is not going to warn you that you have done something wrong, or to give you feedback in the form of an open score.  You are supposed to figure out what the higher ups like or don't like, and act accordingly.  Why release the score at all?

That sound like a pretty terrible strategy.  Feedback is a crucial part of education.

[Monoriu]

The point is there is no reason to let you know what the party thinks about you.  The party is not going to warn you that you have done something wrong, or to give you feedback in the form of an open score.  You are supposed to figure out what the higher ups like or don't like, and act accordingly.  Why release the score at all?

That sound like a pretty terrible strategy.  Feedback is a crucial part of education.

Nobody is interested in education.  Keeping people in the dark helps to keep them in line.  Nobody is going to tell you what is acceptable or not.  Because a crucial part of being in power is the ability to determine what is acceptable or not at a whim.  The people need to be trained to follow the leader, not to follow rules.  If the leader tells you what the rules are, the rules may end up binding the leader.  To maintain the reality that the leader is the rule, it is crucial that he doesn't tell you what the rules are. 

[PJL]

The point is there is no reason to let you know what the party thinks about you.  The party is not going to warn you that you have done something wrong, or to give you feedback in the form of an open score.  You are supposed to figure out what the higher ups like or don't like, and act accordingly.  Why release the score at all?

That sound like a pretty terrible strategy.  Feedback is a crucial part of education.

Nobody is interested in education.  Keeping people in the dark helps to keep them in line.  Nobody is going to tell you what is acceptable or not.  Because a crucial part of being in power is the ability to determine what is acceptable or not at a whim.  The people need to be trained to follow the leader, not to follow rules.  If the leader tells you what the rules are, the rules may end up binding the leader.  To maintain the reality that the leader is the rule, it is crucial that he doesn't tell you what the rules are.

So basically the rule is that the leader is always right. No other rules needed.

[Barrister]

The point is there is no reason to let you know what the party thinks about you.  The party is not going to warn you that you have done something wrong, or to give you feedback in the form of an open score.  You are supposed to figure out what the higher ups like or don't like, and act accordingly.  Why release the score at all?

That sound like a pretty terrible strategy.  Feedback is a crucial part of education.

Nobody is interested in education.  Keeping people in the dark helps to keep them in line.  Nobody is going to tell you what is acceptable or not.  Because a crucial part of being in power is the ability to determine what is acceptable or not at a whim.  The people need to be trained to follow the leader, not to follow rules.  If the leader tells you what the rules are, the rules may end up binding the leader.  To maintain the reality that the leader is the rule, it is crucial that he doesn't tell you what the rules are.

So basically the rule is that the leader is always right. No other rules needed.

That's right.  Because otherwise people might start wondering why the leader isn't subject to the same rules as everyone else...

[Syt]

I don't see how this would be negated by a public score. You just have to make the rules opaque and intransparent.

[Richard Hakluyt]

They could save money by simply using a random number generator to sort the sheep from the goats; the randomness would also maximise intimidation whilst avoiding discrimination.

[Valmy]

I am reminded of people saying what it was like to live in Revolutionary Iran. The Revolutionary Guards would arrest people for completely arbitrary reasons. Really devout Islamic folks would get arrested for tiny little infractions. One woman was arrested for having too much of a head scarf. It created an atmosphere of paranoia, demoralization, and subservience among the population.

I am also reminded of Russia having such a complicated and opaque tax system that nobody really followed it...and it would be enforced almost entirely to attack people the state did not like and made everybody eager to keep on the powers that be's good side.

Arbitrariness is a pretty powerful tool.

[Monoriu]

In that context, is gaming the system a bad thing?  If everyone starts singing the praises of the Communist Party to get a better score, then isn't it what they want?

Oh I forgot to mention one thing.  They buy praises on the internet.  No need to do this the convoluted way.  Hundreds of thousands of university students have been hired to do nothing but browse the internet all day, looking for opportunities to praise the government and discredit anybody who criticises the government.  At 50 cents RMB per post (like US$0.08).  So they are called the 50 cent army/party. 

[Monoriu]

I am reminded of people saying what it was like to live in Revolutionary Iran. The Revolutionary Guards would arrest people for completely arbitrary reasons. Really devout Islamic folks would get arrested for tiny little infractions. One woman was arrested for having too much of a head scarf. It created an atmosphere of paranoia, demoralization, and subservience among the population.

I am also reminded of Russia having such a complicated and opaque tax system that nobody really followed it...and it would be enforced almost entirely to attack people the state did not like and made everybody eager to keep on the powers that be's good side.

Arbitrariness is a pretty powerful tool.

One of the most brilliant crimes invented in ancient China was called "unnecessary".  Imagine one day, the state accuses you of having committed a crime.  You are dragged in front of a tribunal, and you ask the court what crime you have committed.  The judge announces that the title of your crime is "unnecessary" - he doesn't even need to have a pretext for prosecution.  The emperor can execute anybody he pleases, anywhere, any time, and he doesn't need to prepare a story for it.  How can you answer a case that doesn't exist?

[crazy canuck]

So this will be like a university admission application?

[Martinus]

I am reminded of people saying what it was like to live in Revolutionary Iran. The Revolutionary Guards would arrest people for completely arbitrary reasons. Really devout Islamic folks would get arrested for tiny little infractions. One woman was arrested for having too much of a head scarf. It created an atmosphere of paranoia, demoralization, and subservience among the population.

I am also reminded of Russia having such a complicated and opaque tax system that nobody really followed it...and it would be enforced almost entirely to attack people the state did not like and made everybody eager to keep on the powers that be's good side.

Arbitrariness is a pretty powerful tool.

Yeah. Or to tell black people that they better behave in front of a policeman or they can get shot for acting in a "threatening" manner.

[Valmy]

Yeah. Or to tell black people that they better behave in front of a policeman or they can get shot for acting in a "threatening" manner.

OMG you mean the US is A COMPLETELY EVIL TOTALITARIAN STATE!!11

Of course it is Marty. All of our Presidents are Hitler. Better ally with Putin.

But yes. That is basically how it works. You do not even have to shoot that many people.

[Richard Hakluyt]

We are getting pretty close to this, at least potentially, in the UK with our "hate" speech, obscene pornography and "extremist" laws. I suppose that the better-behaved half of the population has not been in breach of these laws, but for the half of us who are sinners we could technically be charged.