Skip to main content

I'm back - Part 2 of 2

Building on what I mentioned in the last post on developing a community of practice for investment. I can think of just a few ideas, based on my reading of the subject. Essentially, I would argue that the community requires at least three main elements.

Firstly, a common agreement or set of guidelines that dictate expectations on investment advice shared in the community can help to make clear two things - the possibility of success or profit as a result of said investment (namely that no investment is comes without risk) and, the expectation of adherence of advice between investors (namely, only you decide what you invest in - do not wildly trust others). 

Secondly, a method of arbitration and moderation of disputes and information posted in the community. I would imagine that this is necessary to ensure that (1) fake news is not posted in the community that could harm it and, (2) to help ascertain veracity in disputes between investors/ members of the community. The main issue of course pertains largely to deciding who gets to become this moderator - I would imagine that it is a mixture of investment proficiency, experience and moral character. 

Finally, there should be a mechanism for the community to detect, blacklist and report potential scammers. I would imagine that this mechanism would be made clear in the original guidelines given to each member. The actual mechanism for reporting scammers for legal recourse might be impossible with the widespread usage of VPNs, but blacklisting at the very least - including deleting the offender's account might still be possible. At the very least, that would increase the opportunity cost for the scammer to persist in his malfeasance. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 10: Reflection Post

I'm going to do my reflection post a bit early this time because I have a few more assignments to complete before the end of the week. I think the main thing that's on my mind now, coming to the end of the course is the question of evaluation: How do we evaluate a produsage-centered course? Do we evaluate it like how we would an instructional course? Using Kirkpatrick's 4 levels of evaluation: Level 1 - Trainee sentiments of the course. I would imagine that this would examine: Metrics examining platforms' usability. Metrics examining instructor proficiency and helpfulness. Metrics examining effectiveness of material. Metrics examining relevance of material. Largely survey-based I think on a usual likert scale. Level 2 - Trainee Proficiency This would probably examine: Trainee's understanding of civil military relations. Trainee's understanding of military law. Trainee's understanding of just war doctrine and application of Jus ad bellum...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thinking of produsage

I've been trying to think about the produsage topic and it seems to me that I have come to a bit of a ID's block. I think one thing that I am worried about is that I might be biting off more than I could chew - and in doing so, unnecessarily increase my workload in a period where all the major assignments of my other modules are beginning to pile up. Regardless, my extreme idea for now is as such. Concept: Using role-playing games that focus on ethical and moral dilemmas to facilitate discussions on morality among military officers. Medium: The role-playing game can be developed on a various levels - technically it should be written from the Second-person perspective, for example " You see a child clutching a hand-grenade, trembling, walking ever so slowly towards you"  . I would imagine that based on the time I have, I would scale the quality of the development from Microsoft Powerpoint being the lowest, to a game engine like a visual novel maker. (I am current...
1 comment
Read more