ialdabaoth comments on [META] Retributive downvoting: Why? - Less Wrong

12 Post author: ialdabaoth 27 November 2012 02:24AM

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

Comments (110)

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

Comment author: ialdabaoth 27 November 2012 09:38:05PM *  0 points [-]

Well, the best I feel comfortable doing is read through all your posts (which seem pretty reasonable, btw) and upvote everything that's at 0 or lower, unless it's particularly egregious (so far nothing is).

One thing that this whole process is teaching me is an appreciation for some of the arguments made here ("karma isn't that important on the whole"), but in the case of a good post not being read because it's too low-karma, I think karma is seriously important and deserves further attention.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 November 2012 10:00:40PM 0 points [-]

Thank you very much for taking the time to do that! I promise to do likewise once time permits. I should log off LW for now in order to get some work done...

Comment author: ialdabaoth 27 November 2012 10:03:54PM 7 points [-]

If I may make a suggestion, please pick a different user to perform that task on, rather than me. I would prefer to not have my karma distorted by primate pack-alliance instincts, for or against, and another user already performed corrective action against the original punitive action. Of course, if anyone comes across one of my posts and considers it worth upvoting, please do so - I just want to avoid systematic upvotes for exactly the same reason that I want to avoid systematic downvotes.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 November 2012 10:10:43PM *  1 point [-]

Oh, I was under the impression that you, too, had been systematically down-voted. My mistake. I will refrain from doing so.

Edit: My reading comprehension skills must be on vacation tonight.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 27 November 2012 10:11:29PM 2 points [-]

I had, but someone else already re-upvoted, so further reaction risks overcorrection.