= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Consciousness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
Perhaps the rule "consistent downvotes of most comments -> stop posting (for a long while)" should be given authority by being added to the "About" page, which may be enough in some cases, removing the need for actual comment-deleting.
I find the process of (1) identifying trolls, (2) trying to convince them to stop posting and (3) kicking them off if they don't listen to be a very unpleasant experience. It introduces all sorts of negativity and it makes me uncomfortable, mainly because the norms and boundaries are subjective and I empathize (but don't sympathize) with the trolls.
I think it would be best if the process was entirely objective and automated -- people could know the rules from the About page and altercations with trolls wouldn't be required.
The main rule would be that people cannot comment if their karma is below some negative value K.
If we wanted to give a "time-out" (-->stop posting (for a long while)) instead of a ban, then this could be automated by an algorithm whereby anyone with negative karma gets one karma point per day until they're back to 0.
Given this second scheme, I think that even a K as high as K=-1 would be fine, because then a person with K=-1 only needs to wait one day until they can comment again.
I suggested something similar recently.
I agree that an automated system would be preferable. By getting (temporarily) deactivated without fanfare, the actual trolls would be robbed of the attention and responses they crave, and the naive innocents will be more likely to believe they've actually done something wrong and should reconsider their behavior, instead of getting self-righteous and feeling maligned and aggrieved.
If you automate it people will just sockpuppet their way around it, and other such attacks.
What we have is working well. Let's not create a system that people will be encouraged to game.
I definitely see your point: if the system is automated and objective, (that is, without any component of public shaming), trolls won't feel as much as though it's a social norm preventing them from posting so they will feel like it's OK to work around the system. However, it's the atmosphere of public shaming that makes me uncomfortable.
We could try to emphasize the social norm as much as possible in the About description, something along the lines of, "If you have negative karma, it is because the net opinion of readers on Less Wrong of your comments is negative. Thus, users with negative karma are discouraged from commenting by an interruption in their ability to post comments."
Also, I submit that it wouldn't be that rewarding to sock-puppet yourself to positive karma, just to post a comment and get negative karma again.
Not me. And anyway, it's not you in charge of this process, so you could try to ignore it to avoid the stress, if at all possible. (It may not be.)
A lot of negativity seems unavoidable whenever anyone comes around the community disagrees with, either as a troll (like the "immortal" guy), or just as someone pushing weird and likely wrong opinions. I'm not sure the "kicking" part itself is a big part of that, so I'm not sure your solution would help.
Do you believe such a rule would be effective?
Edit: I don't mean to be snide or anything - I don't know if the sort of person to ignore persistent downvoting would also ignore a rule posted in the "About" page about persistent downvoting. I believe they would not, but I can't back that up with evidence.
I'd support the addition of the rule to the About page not because I'd have expectations about anyone's behavior but because it is apparently Eliezer's policy to enforce such a rule, so we should probably state the rule explicitly somewhere that newcomers are likely to see it.
An even stronger point - I, too, add my support to the addition of such a rule to the About page.
In a sizable portion of cases, yes. But then again, how many people have we asked to leave? Maybe 5 to 8, no more. On the other hand, presence of this rule may make the endgame shorter, as non-admin users would be able to appeal to it.
That sounds reasonable to me - the second point is particularly cogent.