sanxiyn comments on Negative karma is a bad design - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: sanxiyn 13 December 2012 11:27AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (31)

Comments (31)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 13 December 2012 11:56:04AM *  6 points [-]

I disagree strongly.

We don't want to encourage people to create superfluous accounts, do we?

Why? Because we will run out of bits?

Therefore I think LessWrong codebase should be patched so that karma does not go below zero even with lots of downvotes.

I disagree. There is a useful distinction to be made between someone starting out at 0 karma or just breaking even and someone running a negative score.

Comment author: sanxiyn 13 December 2012 12:18:42PM 3 points [-]

There is a useful distinction to be made between someone starting out at 0 karma or just breaking even and someone running a negative score.

There is, but my point was that you can't make this useful distinction usefully.

Comment author: CarlShulman 13 December 2012 02:09:52PM 1 point [-]

I recall there have been a few posters who have cycled accounts to make top-level posts, but I think this declined dramatically after the karma minimum for posting went up. So probably a pretty low-priority, but I agree there is an incentive problem (depending on how attached people are to their accounts).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit