= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Proverbs and Cached Judgments: the Rolling Stone - 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 (30)
I think you're right about that. Since I don't approve of voting on comments based solely on who posted them, I have gone through Annoyance's post history and distributed blind up-votes, to counter one of the people who did the same with down-votes.
Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times a user can vote a particular user's comments in the same direction.
You're combating what you perceive as insincere voting with insincere voting? Would it not be better to vote up those comments which you feel add to the site?
We could really do with a median-based voting system, like the one I proposed here.
"You're combating what you perceive as insincere voting with insincere voting?"
It seems to me that people willing to vote insincerely will have a disproportionate effect, since it's lots easier to vote yes or no willy-nilly than to only express yourself rarely after due deliberation.
I agree in general, and as an occasional python programmer I would consider implementing the idea in the LW code if the administrators like it.
That does sound like 100% textbook classic "reversed stupidity".