It doesn't take much - just one jerk systematically downvoting a page or two of your existing comments. I lost like 37 points in less than an hour that way a few days ago. We really need separate up/down counts, or better yet ups and downs per voter, so you can ignore systematic friend upvotes and foe downvotes.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 March 2009 10:53:07PM 1 point [-]

Are we already getting this behavior? I'll have to start looking into voting patterns... Sigh.

Comment author: ciphergoth 18 March 2009 11:10:05PM 1 point [-]

Have you looked at Raph Levien's work on attack resistant trust metrics?

Comment author: Emile 19 March 2009 10:56:54AM * 0 points [-]

Couldn't it also be due to a change in the karma calculation rules in order to, say, not take your own upvote in account on karma calculations? I remember that was mentioned, but don't know if it was implemented in the meantime.

Edit: Well, it seems that it isn't implemented yet, since posting this got me a karma point :)

Comment author: ciphergoth comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Yvain 18 March 2009 02:10:52PM * 9 points [-]

By principle of charity, I interpret Marshall as saying not that rationalists can't be kind, but that rationalism alone doesn't make you kind. Judging by my informal torture vs. pie experiments, I find this to be true. Rationality is necessary but not sufficient for a friendly world. We also need people who value the right kind of things. Rationality can help clarify and amplify morality, but it's got to start from pre-rational sources. Until further research is done, I suggest making everyone watch a lot of Thundercats and seeing whether that helps :)

Of course, like with every use of the principle of charity, I might just be reading too much into a statement that really was stupid.

Comment author: astray 18 March 2009 04:29:04PM 3 points [-]

Your torture vs. pie experiment makes me think of another potential experiment. Is torture ever preferable to making, say, 3^^^3 people never have pie again? (In the sense of dust specks, the never eating pie is to be the entire consequence of the action. The potential pie utility is just gone, nothing else.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 March 2009 06:17:12PM -1 points [-]

By the principle of accuracy, I look up Marshall's other comments: http://lesswrong.com/user/Marshall/

Marshall doesn't have to be voted down for being wrong. He can be voted down for using an applause light and being vague.

Comment author: Annoyance 18 March 2009 08:15:23PM 2 points [-]

"Marshall doesn't have to be voted down for being wrong. He can be voted down for using an applause light and being vague."

So can Eliezer_Yudkowsky.

Comment deleted 18 March 2009 07:19:00PM [-]

Comment author: topynate 18 March 2009 08:09:49PM 0 points [-]

"I have no wish to be a member of a club, who will not have me."

This is not the case. You've made over 30 comments; it's trivial for an individual to swing your karma by large amounts. I note that your karma has made large swings in the ~30 minutes I've been considering this reply. If you want to discuss the group dynamics of LW then I have more to say, but I'm going to request (temporarily) that you don't accuse me of groupthink or status seeking if you do.

Marshall comments on Rational Me or We? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (128)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (128)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login