= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Meta: A 5 karma requirement to post in discussion - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (51)
Not giving zero-Karma users leave to vote will stop this breach as well. (A more thorough solution would involve a form of conserved Karma currency -- I wonder if this is in use anywhere -- you could even introduce advanced instruments such as Karma loans.)
Yes, requiring karma to vote would stop this and would I think be a good idea, though it's more development effort still. After that, see Raph Levien's paper on "Attack Resistant Trust Metrics".
Not as such, but the same purpose is frequently served by making votes give karma according to the karma of the voter.
On StackExchange sites, downvoting costs you karma - so it's not a conserved Karma currency, but it's still a use of Karma to prevent unwanted behaviors.
I would get a lot of pleasure out of spending my karma to penalise stupidity. Let me at them. :D
This is an interesting idea. The main qualm I have is with spam- am I going to spend my precious karma on hiding jewelry advertisements?- but otherwise it seems the right disincentive for being critical.
Well, ideally if a moderator deleted your comment as spam you'd get your karma back; or maybe downvoting shouldn't be used as a way to deal with spam (there is a "report" button for that).
Down-voting contributes to site negativity, bad vibes, etc. On the other hand you don't want to discourage users from interacting and providing feedback too much. It would be interesting to learn more about where the sweet spot here lies.