solipsist comments on [meta] Future moderation and investigation of downvote abuse cases, or, I don't want to deal with this stuff - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (52)
Actually, I was going to recommend against a detailed formal policy. Codified rules seems like an invitation for passionate arguments about Stuff That Doesn't Matterâ„¢. If we need a rule, how about:
If you are acting in a way incongruent with the greater harmony of LessWrong, a moderator may private message to ask you to stop. If you don't stop, you may be banned.
Also have a stated social norm:
Don't downvote comments because of the author. There's no hard and fast rule, but if you've downvoted someone more than 8 times in one day or read through someone's comment history and downvoted past the first page, you are doing something wrong.
In the specific case of mass downvoting, if a moderator gets a complaint I think the typical procedure should be:
But before you complain to a moderator: Please consider the possibility that your comments are just bad, that someone might disagree with you for legitimate reasons, and that negative feedback is information positive.
Harmony is near the bottom of the list of values I want to see enforced. Probably below oral hygiene.
I invite suggestions for improved rule phrasings which avoid objectionable or controversial words like harmony :-)
It's not wrong if most of what the user writes is bad. The wrong thing is to act on an incorrect judgement, something that won't be supported by idealized community. The heuristic you suggest limits influence, which guards against consequences of overconfidence. In some cases, you can see that there is no mistake.
I tend to agree with the first statement as a rule of thumb. If you're reading and downvoting 8 postings in a day that you think are not worth reading (apparently), it seems like you're taking it upon yourself to punish that person, whereas I think it is better if we try to read what we consider to be valuable, and if we happen across some writing that seems bad, sure, critique it with a -1 if that seems worthwhile, but don't go on a jag reading all the bad (by your standards) writing you can find and downvoting it.
I am not opposed to a moderator having power like what you describe, but I wouldn't want to be them.