How repeat games and rules build trust

I was in Belfast on Tuesday giving a talk on the possibility of using the Internet as a deliberative space. There are quite a few blog posts on it worth reading, not least Alan From Belfast's here, kindly signposted by Simon. However this preparatory post by the event's discussant, Ciarán O'Kelly raises a point worth noting on the issue of trust (or lack of it) in online dialogue:

"...you can hold conversations with people you would not meet in, um, three-dimensional society, especially on sites where repeat games can encourage good behaviour. The trust can actually come from the lack of face-to-face interaction."

Comments

[Alan in Belfast]

Doesn’t the trust also come from the lack of identity recognition? The lack of reputation? Trust strengthened by anonymity - at least in the first few rounds of the conversation game.

By beginning the conversation in a clean room with our pockets empty of photo id cards and our bags filled with preconceptions left outside the door.

But knowing some real-world history about the other players (even though you’ve never met them) could make it all the harder to get started. Particularly in the political arena where history, policy and viewpoints are so easily attached to well-known individuals.

You talked on Tuesday about your conscious decision to start out online using your real name, bearing in mind that anything you said could be read by your mother! But my using your real name, you hoped that your existing reputation was either positive or neutral. Otherwise it could have been counterproductive - either online or in real life.

Online brings two advantages. There’s the “people you would not meet” from Ciarán’s post, and also the “people you would *not choose* to meet”.

Do you think online repeat games can build trust with people not trusted in real life?