= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge - 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 (369)
A logic which applies only to people who are interested in getting a warm glow and not for people interested in helping. Diversifying charitable investments maximizes your chance of getting at least some warm glow from "having helped". It does not help people as best they can be helped.
I'm beginning to think that LW needs some better mechanism for dealing with the phenomenon of commenters who are polite, repetitive, immune to all correction, and consistently wrong about everything. I know people don't like it when I say this sort of thing, but seriously, people like that can lower the perceived quality of a whole website.
As an alternative to you just making the decision to ban users in order to improve site's quality, maybe establish a user-banning board? Known users on the board, with information about individual voting not publicly available. These cases are sufficiently rare and different for development of an adequate automated system being very difficult to impossible.
(Another alternative is to open such decisions to an open vote and discussion, but this can be noisy and with other undesirable consequences, probably even worse than authoritarian system.)