Jack comments on Open Thread: February 2010 - Less Wrong

1 Post author: wedrifid 01 February 2010 06:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (738)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bgrah449 05 February 2010 06:51:23PM *  5 points [-]

My karma management techniques:

1) If I'm in a thread and someone's comment is rated equally with mine, and therefore potentially displaying atop my comment, I downvote theirs until it'll pass mine despite my downvote, to give my comment more exposure. I remove the downvote later, usually upvoting (their comment is getting voted better than mine because it's good).

2) If I'm debating someone and I want to downvote their comment, I upvote it for a day or so, then later return to downvote it. This gives the impression that two objective observers who read the thread later agreed with me. This works best on long debate threads, because a) if my partner's comments are getting immediately upvoted, they tend to be encouraged and will continue the debate, further exposing themselves to downvotes and b) they get fewer reads, so a single vote up or down makes a much bigger impression when almost all the comments in the thread are rarely upvoted/downvoted past +/- 2.

3) Karma is really about rewarding or punishing an author for content, to encourage certain types of content. Comments that are too aggressive will not be upvoted even if people agree with the point, because they don't want to reward aggressive behavior. Likewise, comments that are not aggressive enough are given extra karma - the reader's first instinct is to help promote this message because the timid author won't promote it enough on his own. This is nonsensical in this format, but the instinct is preserved.

I've noticed that the comments that get voted up the most are those that do probability calculations, those whose authors' names pop out of the page, and those which are cynical on the surface, possibly with a wry humor, while revealing a deep earnestness. If you have something unpopular to say, or are just plain losing an argument, that's the best tone to take, because people will avoid downvoting if they disagree, but will usually upvote if they do agree.

EDIT: I agree with Alicorn that votes shouldn't be anonymous, as it would remove the dirtiest of these variably dirty techniques, but in the meantime, play to win.

Comment author: Jack 07 February 2010 10:54:04PM *  1 point [-]

What I really want to do is destroy you karma-wise. This behavior deserves to be punished severely. But I'm now worried about a chilling effect on others who do this coming forward.

Also, everyone, see poll below.

Comment author: pjeby 08 February 2010 05:28:51AM 2 points [-]

What I really want to do is destroy you karma-wise. This behavior deserves to be punished severely. But I'm now worried about a chilling effect on others who do this coming forward.

I want to downvote you for this, because punishing people for telling the truth is a bad thing. On the other hand, you are also telling the truth, so... now I'm confused. ;-)

Comment author: Jack 08 February 2010 05:37:33AM *  0 points [-]

Er, I was expressing my initial emotional reaction, not advocating a policy. Like I said, I'm worried about the chilling effect.

I didn't even vote down the original comment! Much less destroy him/her.

Comment author: Jack 07 February 2010 10:56:30PM *  0 points [-]

If you have ever used one of bgrah's techniques, or some other karma manipulation technique that you believe would be widely frowned upon here vote this comment up.

(Since apparently you people think this is a game, You can down vote the comment beneath this so I don't beat you.)

EDIT: I seriously have to say this? If you don't like there being a poll vote down the above comment or the karma balancer below. Don't just screw up the poll out of spite.

Comment author: byrnema 07 February 2010 11:51:13PM 3 points [-]

If you have ever used one of bgrah's techniques, or some other karma manipulation technique that you believe would be widely frowned upon here vote this comment up.

I am considering voting up in order to tilt things in favor of making votes de-anonymized. Ironically, as soon as I do so, it's true..

Comment author: wedrifid 08 February 2010 03:59:53AM 1 point [-]

If you have ever suppressed your best judgement on something because you feared the social consequences of not supplicating to the speaker vote this comment up.

Comment author: bgrah449 08 February 2010 04:13:04AM 1 point [-]

If it's not a game, why punish me? What's so offensive about me having high karma?

Comment author: Jack 08 February 2010 05:04:08AM 5 points [-]

There is nothing offensive about you having high karma. It is offensive that you you abused a system that a lot of us rely on for evaluating content and encouraging norms that lead to the truth. Truth-seeking is a communal activity and undermining the system that a community uses to find the truth is something we should punish. It's similar to learning that you had lied in a comment.

I imagine the vast majority of your karma is not ill-gotten, I have no problem with you having it.

Anyway, I haven't voted you down for precedent setting reasons.

Comment author: Kevin 08 February 2010 04:16:05AM *  0 points [-]

It's a game; people take themselves too seriously sometimes. They also think that their moral system is superior to your moral system.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 February 2010 10:58:35PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure this poll is as anonymous as it should be for maximum accuracy. If votes are ever de-anonymized, someone might swing by and look at this.

Comment author: komponisto 08 February 2010 02:42:03AM 3 points [-]

Solution: never de-anonymize votes retroactively.

Comment author: Jack 07 February 2010 11:29:53PM -1 points [-]

I'll delete the comment in a couple of weeks, or sooner if karma is de-anonymized.

Comment author: Jack 07 February 2010 10:57:08PM 0 points [-]

Karma balancer.