Thank you so much!

I don't actually believe the problem can be solved, only improved continuously. We will constantly have biases and new perspectives, since the nature of reality is change. What's fearful to me is having no insight into what they are.

I think that it's both and, right? Like, I would be more wary of anything that has zero self-correcting mechanics because in spite of the design flaws of a positive feedback loop, I'd rather have a feedback loop open than closed!

For instance: editorial discretion and peer review can be self-correcting, but they can also reinforce biases/inaccuracies in data collection/analysis/application. So, does "self-correction" (or lack thereof) optimally distinguish the old/new models? Scale seems to play a big role here, too.

It really felt like a genuine society of people who all knew each other, even though almost no one did before the event started!

This extremely lightweight mechanics framework was all that was needed to make it extremely easy and comfortable for first-timers to be able to get really, really involved, be wildly creative, and enable everyone to lift and support one another.

If your secrets were revealed, you would lose status, too. The gossip board was a particularly fun element that people really enjoyed playing with!

There was also a status sink: gossip! Everyone had secrets, and by spending status, you could uncover someone's secrets for all to know, and their secrets would be posted on the gossip board.

If they had more than 3 status they could give it to friends by making a scene out of it.

They could do matchmaking, recreation, politics, or discovery (read: puzzle track!) or just do cool roleplayed scenes with one another and facilitators would reward them for engaging with status.

We also had a really lightweight status mechanics. Status was represented by pins, and people could earn status by engaging with the environment in fun and meaningful ways.