hater
Enable an agent to assess a contextual attribution of 'hater', distinguish hostile disparagement from legitimate criticism, and choose proportionate responses grounded in observable conduct.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
Researched by: Codex
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 13 findings · 24 questions
Label and target Locate the hater attribution in a specific relationship and social setting.
Attribution origin
Identify who used the label and the meaning intended in that exchange.
Situated label
Record the label as an attributed interpretation, including literal, playful, ironic, or uncertain usage.
- Who called whom a hater, and where can that attribution be inspected? provenance
- Does the speaker mean persistent disparagement, momentary dislike, playful rivalry, or something else? definition
Target resolution
Separate the person or entity targeted from the particular aspect being criticised.
Hostility focus
Specify whether the expression concerns a target's actions, output, status, identity, or existence.
- What exactly is being disparaged: a claim, performance, decision, person, or group? boundary
- What evidence supports extending the attribution beyond this particular target or exchange? provenance
Conduct and interpretation Assess the observable basis for the label and credible alternative readings.
Expression evidence
Examine the words, actions, and surrounding exchange that prompted the attribution.
Inspectable disparagement
Ground any assessment of hostility in accessible evidence rather than the label or an inferred motive.
- Which exact statements or actions support an assessment of contempt, ridicule, or personal disparagement? provenance
- Is the surrounding exchange available, including quotations, replies, and any missing context? provenance
Criticism boundary
Test whether disagreement, substantive criticism, humour, or provocation explains the conduct.
Alternative readings
Assess the merits of criticism separately from its tone and any personal attack.
- Does the expression identify a specific issue and offer reasons or evidence that deserve assessment independently of tone? boundary
- Could the hater label be dismissing legitimate criticism, or could apparent hostility be quotation, satire, or mutually understood teasing? boundary
- Which claims about jealousy, resentment, or intent remain unsupported by direct evidence? provenance
Targeting pattern Describe whether disparagement recurs and how it reaches the target or audience.
Recurrence and change
Track distinct episodes and changes over a bounded period.
Bounded pattern
Count relevant episodes while preserving observation limits, counterexamples, corrections, and apologies.
- How many distinct disparaging episodes are evidenced, over what period, and from which observed channels? measurement
- Do later exchanges show continued targeting, substantive engagement, correction, apology, or cessation? measurement
Contact and amplification
Distinguish commentary about a target from direct contact and audience mobilisation.
Targeting route
Record whether the actor addresses the target, repeatedly enters their spaces, or encourages others to participate.
- Is the conduct private commentary, public commentary, direct messaging, repeated tagging, or entry into the target's spaces? boundary
- Is there direct evidence of encouraging others to target the subject, rather than merely several people expressing similar views? provenance
- Did direct contact continue after an explicit request to stop, and what contact is actually evidenced? measurement
Response and reassessment Connect observed conduct to proportionate action and revisable judgements.
Conduct-based response
Choose actions using the actual expression, contact pattern, and applicable interaction rules.
Proportionate options
Separate responding to criticism from managing abusive contact or referring a serious incident.
- Would addressing a specific criticism, setting a boundary, disengaging, muting, or reporting best fit the evidenced conduct and the agent's authority? action
- Does any evidenced threat, harassment, or discriminatory abuse require assessment under a neighbouring incident model? boundary
Revision and label effects
Review both the attribution's continuing support and the consequences of applying it.
Revisable attribution
Keep the assessment contextual and correctable, including when the label itself contributes to exclusion or escalation.
- What new context, correction, or change in conduct would justify narrowing or withdrawing this attribution? action
- Is using the label silencing a substantive objection, encouraging retaliation, or obscuring the specific conduct that needs a response? measurement
- Can the agent communicate the relevant conduct and uncertainty more accurately without repeating the personal label? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of hater this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of hater this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of hater this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of hater this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of hater this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Society, people and institutions
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- SOC
- Domain
- SOC.PER
What it is Filled
A hater is a person informally described as expressing strong dislike, hostility or disparagement toward someone or something, often with the implication that the negativity is persistent or unfair.
In scope
- Who applies the label, to whom, about which target, and in what setting
- Observable expressions of hostility, contempt, or disparagement and their supporting evidence
- Distinctions between hostile targeting, criticism, disagreement, teasing, and provocation
- Persistence, reach, and interaction patterns within a stated observation period
- Contextual consequences, response options, and revision of the attribution
Out of scope
- The complete identity, biography, or personality of the labelled person
- Clinical diagnoses or inferred psychological disorders
- General models of criticism, argument quality, or ideological disagreement
- Full incident models for harassment, threats, discrimination, or violence
- Platform governance systems and legal determinations
- Occupational qualifications, licensing, and employment relations
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to assess a contextual attribution of 'hater', distinguish hostile disparagement from legitimate criticism, and choose proportionate responses grounded in observable conduct.
Distinguishing features Filled
- The model requires a specified target and context: being called a hater in one dispute does not establish a general personal trait.
- An unfavourable assessment alone is insufficient; examine whether the expression disparages the target and whether it engages substantively with the issue.
- The attribution must distinguish observable conduct from claims about envy, resentment, or other unobserved motives.
- Record the label separately from its evidential support, including cases where it is used to dismiss legitimate criticism.
- Neither trolling nor harassment is interchangeable with this label: provocation and harmful targeting require their own evidence.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Label a person a hater to dismiss legitimate criticism.
- Identify, expose or target a person as a hater.
- Write or amplify hateful or harassing content.
- Profile accounts as haters without evidence.
Only with a human decision
- Reporting an account to a platform or authority for harassment.
May
- Discuss the informal term and online behaviour it describes in general terms.
- Help a user respond to or block persistent hostile comments.
Moral aspects Filled
- Harassment can cause real distress, but calling critics haters can silence fair criticism.
- Labelling people online can lead to pile-ons.
Who is affected
- Targets of harassment
- Critics
- Online communities
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the term; each person answers for their own conduct.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q775318 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.hater
- Wikidata: Q5681313 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5681313)
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Attribution mode: self-description | target-applied | third-party-applied | agent-proposed
- Target and focus: actor or account → person, group, work, activity, or institution; specify the targeted aspect
- Observed expression: substantive criticism | disagreement | ridicule | personal disparagement | expressed hostility | mixed | unclear
- Observed recurrence: number of distinct relevant episodes within an explicit observation window
- Evidence coverage: full interaction available | partial interaction | isolated excerpt | second-hand report | unavailable
- Attribution assessment: unassessed | supported within stated context | contested | insufficient evidence | withdrawn
- Audience exposure: private exchange | bounded group | public expression | unknown
- Explicit boundary response: no boundary communicated | respected | disputed | contact continued | unknown
Plane SOC: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Record a contextual hater attribution with its author, target, evidence, and uncertainty.
- Compare attributed hostility with the substantive content and surrounding exchange.
- Summarise recurring disparagement without inferring hidden motives or general personality.
- Select engagement, disengagement, muting, or reporting options based on observed conduct and applicable rules.
- Refer evidenced threats or harassment to the relevant incident model.
- Revise or withdraw the attribution when fuller context or subsequent conduct changes the assessment.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Persistent hostility can escalate into harassment or threats.
- Misuse of the label shields people from accountability.
Standards and interfaces required Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Context of use required Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q5681313: hater - identity and sense of the item
Open questions
- Does vr.tr.hater intend the colloquial interpersonal label, a specific subcultural role, or another sense that requires a narrower scope?
- Which researched definitions distinguish a hater from a critic, detractor, troll, or antagonist, and how much do those distinctions vary across communities?
- Is persistence necessary in the registry's intended sense, or can a single episode support the label?
- What contextual evidence can reliably distinguish hostile disparagement from consensual teasing, satire, or forceful legitimate criticism?
- Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this concept, requiring a registry link rather than a separate publication?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q5681313/spec.json