When reputation was measured in more rich manners

Reputation has a spectrum, it could come from achievements, popular presentation of one's self, being audited or scrutinized, being on a court, etc. 

What I envision the future would be if people would want to improve on how they measure reputation is:

The favor of consumers over a company would not only be from the prices of their products, or the qualities, or how fancy and dandy were their situations, but it should be more fluid. A company would be measured not only from its size and prevalence but people would look at the "golden stickers" or the history of achievements of their management for example. When the management changes how the public would view the company would also changes, scientists would be able to influence this as well for example by pointing out the statistic of how the change of management influence company policies and achievements, how sensitive a company is to change of management. Something like that

Another point that should also be in the spectrum is scrutiny. Like now we often were scrutinized by the tax office, that's how we and the government came in good terms. Those who had undergone high scrutiny would probably be trusted more by the government. Strangely now people who were cancelled received no extra points for being scrutinized, the consumers quickly move on to the next new thing while ignoring the advantages that their network already build with people like Pewdiepie, Joe Rogan, Johnny Depp etc (some names are controversial but rightly mentioned; Mr. Beast, Logan Paul, Dr. Disrespect, Will Smith, and more). Not saying that they are better than the other people, but the fact that they've been under scrutiny should be an extra merit, which is unfortunately the public in general is not doing that in my opinion. 

So of course an obvious possible way of how this improvement would happen would likely be from an app or an extention to social media. Golden Sticker for example is something that I've proposed for more than a decade, is a system of putting stickers in your profile page that's an aggregation of your receipts, such electronic sticker could be filtered and zoomed in through various dimensions such as period, type of industries, magnitudes, etc. Now in this case, one might incorporate a display of how many times he/she/it had been audited, by what parties. Each communities would do well also to have a forum where they could chip in information that would make up these "badge" or these electronic favors. 

These favors are important for each individuals because we want to be in a circuit and we don't want to have our community or our circuit to not be reciprocal to us.  Also other reasons such as altruism, honesty, devotion, Justice, and fairness. What I'm saying here is hardly new, we already knew of the term "blood diamond", "black companies", "child labor sweatshops", and these people have actually in my opinion started something big. This is an easy way to look at it but of course it is more than that, to have an online electronic reputation system would help people to recognize the entities better, and the entities should not be encouraged to be a giant, but to be fluid where they wouldn't mind to disband and regroup, they would not lose their achievements. Entities would also not encouraged to manipulate speech or public images or to adopt hostile PR policies that attacked honesty, because people value courage more than touches of "make up". 

Tax discount chores idea

The municipalities could announce seasonal or occassional requests for goods and services in exchange for cash (of course, tax coupons, or tax discounts)

The god v.06

When social condemnation is your god, you'd need the social to condemn

However you knew that the society is blind, so you'd need the society to conform to esteemed figures

However you knew that the revered figures are corruptible (especially those who gave assurance that they're uncorruptible), so you need auditors

However you knew that the revered figures will attack the auditors, but somehow you didn't know what to do...

Lets increase the punishments instead

--------------------------

fyi : that post was sarcastic... -_-

why make punishment harder and harder for public sentiment? Evil politicians! Like, these persecutions only empowers them to intimidate others who are checking on them or wanted to do better than them. Reduce the punishments so that audit can be done with less stakes and anyone can audit. If you said audit is a market then the opposite is logical! we need people to realize what audit is and how expensive it is... if they never do that because of "culture" which is trash and satanic (that aspect of it), how could they understand and appreciate what it is and what it costs?

Cheap audit is cheap and its beautiful

Expensive audit is expensive and its beautiful

Different definitions of worship

Based on my own personal observation, open to critique btw, some people have different meanings of worship when they say worship. I think what a lot of people had is I'll subject myself to "God" with absolute loyalty. That's the kind of embedded circuit within people, which entails one of the "need" in human being, to have someone or some deities to worship. Its probably like sex where it just needs to be channeled. 

However you got to train yourself to separate elements of this circuit in your brain. Politicians could tap into this and take advantage of this against our own best interests. People might not realize this but the party that they're in, the race, the religion, the group that they're in, potentially not only cater to our social needs but also our room for God. Such if unchecked can make people do things or be a certain way that is profitable firstly not to them but to other people (evil politicians). 

So when you worship, worship to the true God that is the Spirit of Truth, cause you'd pledge your loyalty to the Truth and then you'd be free. Because worship will make you be wrong when the "god" is wrong, but if God is the Spirit of Truth then He will invite audit. 

Search me O Lord and Seek out my Heart...

Drawing meaning through derivatives (of writings and sayings)

When someone was not talking directly either responsibly or irresponsibly (attribution-wise), what is the meaning that the person was saying or writing? Stalkers and gossipers would argue it is in their conviction, but a person could have hierarchies of convictions. So based on the gossipers and bully's culture they would consider whatever they deemed to be the meaning as the meaning, as long as it is a person's conviction. 

This is why in Christianity God is the one who sees the heart, humans are to judge just by the result. When comes to "conviction", a person might had emotional conviction in what he / she illustrated, but if such person was, for example, acted in a discipline that always prioritized their "Rule conviction", maybe they were religious, or maybe they commited to lawfulness, it would be painting a wide brush to say that such emotion was what they mean when "the rule" could mean another. Moreover I don't think types of convictions are few, should be many.

However such logic could only improve derivation not complete it. So the best thing is to reconfirm or to ask the person again. When an art or an illustration or a humor was done responsibly, inherently it would be within context to inquire on the meaning of such product, irresponsible ones would require an out of context invokation of inquiry of the thing, which burden the inquirer. But, some people might not realize what other people contexts were, and some people were just choosing not to comply to such contexts.

-------------------------------

Here therefore a logical problem, when could one refuse a context? When could one refuse some contexts while still speaking? I'd say you should always be able to do that as long as your conviction and your actions statistically speaking, or your discipline follows your preferred context always. Of course the primary context or the basic wording of the speech is the context, that's the extent of one's responsibility is it not?

Here's another logical problem, whose responsibility was it when some secondary or tertiary context were habitual or cultural for a group of people? Whose responsibility was it to always consider them when talking? The problem is these contexts are unlimited actually with ever changing orders of importance. I'm not one of you, I should have the right to be considered just as a member of the public, please relieve me of this uncalled for obligations. 

Maybe, cause it had to go somewhere right?

When you communicate usually it would transfer responsibilities to the receiver, when it comes to art or humor or music that shouldn't be the case, but other times it is. For example when you say that there is a lamp that is yellow and there is a lamp that is blue, since you've said it, you've said it, so when such information amount to something you would've already said it. The worst kind of communication is when there was a transfer of responsibility but the messenger wouldn't be responsible, in this case the receiver couldn't refuse the responsibility or adjust it without "paying" for some extra steps. It is infuriating. 

Then I assume, people thought that it is normal to experience such things, so the culture went towards more and more furious. What I mean by that is that the culture is looking for more and more things to define as bad or immoral or not nice or unacceptable. Most of the time such things are not that infuriating supposedly, but damn why is it that you just can't dodge these things sometimes. 

So if you wanted to experience what our predecessors experienced when they fought and successfully delegitimized slavery, this could be our next thing to get rid of. I'm sorry I mean, this shit, this shit could be our next thing to get rid of, my bad. 

Justice people are not being difficult, the focus is different

Good and Evil is not about neuroticism or not. Today some neurotic people might feel like doing injustice for the excuse of their intense feelings, tommorow the less neurotic people might be the ones who were unjust for this and that.

Justice is hard enough to achieve, like an arrow might not hit the bullseye even after being aimed, those that are aiming would not hit the bull's eye unless its a coincidence. 

To make it harder for those that are trying or specifically prevents those that are trying to be Just is being too adversarial, unnecessarily adversarial. People we should talk responsibly