= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Final Words - 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 (54)
low priority, I'm sure, but I'd be entirely in favor of a means by which we could enact bets like these.
Might be too easily gamed. Imagine that A and B are both keen to get more karma -- of course A and B might really be the same person, though not the same LW-user -- then they both make 1000-to-1 bets against one another, etc. (Of course the karma system can already be subverted a little by simpler means -- A and B just upvote one another -- but that's much slower and milder.)
I was assuming that karma was actually being transferred, zero-sum.
That puts people with a great deal of Karma in a much better position with respect to Karma gambling. You could take us normal folk all-in pretty easily.
well, I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take a bet which could lose them their posting ability, for example.
[EDIT, later: This comment is simply wrong; I wasn't thinking straight. Sorry.]
You can't do that for uneven bets, like orthonormal's. (I suppose you could have a negative-sum system where you say "I'm willing to gain 1 point at the risk of N", and then you need to find N people who will all bet with you on those terms; they all make 1-for-1 bets, but if you win you only get 1. But that doesn't seem terribly appealing.)
I don't understand the problem.
If Eliezer imagined Brennan as wanting to create more Bayesian masters, ortho would lose 10 points, which MrShaggy would gain. Under the reverse case, ortho gains a point, MrShaggy loses one.
The problem is that I'm an idiot and misunderstood; sorry.
I voted this down and the parent up because, while it's a fine apology, you should not actually get more karma for admitting a mistake than the person who corrected you gets.
Fine with me. (I'm going to take the self-flattering route and assume that my comment got voted up because being prepared to admit one's errors is a good thing, rather than because the observation "gjm is an idiot" is particularly worthy of upvotes...)
I voted this down, and the immediate parent up, because recognizing one's errors and acknowledging them is worthy of Karma, even if the error was pointed out to you by another.
I voted this down, and the immediate parent up, because I hope that someone will find my comment ridiculous and vote it down and its parent up and say so, causing someone else to disagree with that response, voting the response down and this comment up.
I voted Eliezer up because I think his observation was perfectly reasonable and didn't deserve downvoting, and because his action seems eminently reasonable (I'm always glad of extra karma, but I can hardly claim to be entitled to +5 rather than +4 for being an idiot and then admitting it).
I voted Guy's comment down, then up, then down again, then back to neither-up-nor-down. I hope that's sufficiently ridiculous to match his comment.
I guess this raises a different question: I've been attempting to use my up and down votes as a straight expression of how I regard the post or comment. While I can't guarantee that I am never drawn to inadvertently engage in corrective voting (where I attempt to bring a post or comment's karma in line with where I think it should be in an absolute sense or relative to another post), it seems as though this is your conscious approach.
What are the advantages/disadvantages or the two approaches?
The correct voting system looks like this: everyone assigns to each post the score they think it should have. The voting system adds a number of "fake votes" at each threshhold to ensure that posts with few votes don't get too high a rating, and then takes the median vote as the score. That way there's no need for "corrective voting" - voting for the score you want to see will always do the right thing.