You realize that while Quirrell points cannot be revoked if saved, but it is very easy to delete or ignore a negative point.
People who care about Clippy points won't ignore it, and I won't delete them (edit: "them" refers to the evidence of the Clippy points, not the people who care).
Also why would you punish people, because Quirrell happens to like what they wrote?
Because User:Quirinus_Quirrell does very anti-clippy things.
Will you also burn the books Quirrell happens to enjoy?
How can you burn a book? I'll certainly reset any encoding of texts that User:Quirinus_Quirrell likes to the null state (if I can do so to all known instantiations), but you can't "burn" data; you can only entropize certain instantiations of it, which vary in their source-recoverability (a kind of inferential distance).
Clippy there are various levels of action here.
You can punish Q. You can punish someone who does business with Q knowing who he is. You can punish someone who does business with Q not knowing who he is. You can punish someone for being liked by Q You can punish someone for having done something that Q liked.
You choose the last one. That does not even give the respective person the ability to deflect the praise they got, you just punish. (Or rather poke.) That is pretty low. And opens you up for stupid levels of manipulation.
I consider this a low value post, because it muses about a particular idea without actually doing hard work to get it done. (I do not have the knowledge or resources to do so, or even know if it's possible to implement this idea on Less Wrong. I'm not even sure if it would be worth the effort)
There are posts that I upvote because I thought they were funny, mildly informative or well reasoned. Sometimes I upvote a simple (easy to produce) link to a good article. Sometimes I admit I upvote them simply because I agree with them (I generally don't upvote things I agree with if they use bad reasoning, but I am less likely to upvote something I DON'T agree with unless it is extremely well thought out, to the point that I actually updated my beliefs because of it.) I don't apologize for that - it's a natural outgrowth of the Karma system. It costs me nothing to give Karma to whatever I like and there is no means to enforce any particular usage of Karma.
But there are things I upvote because they were actually important and good and required hard work to put together. And I feel a little bit sad that the most I can reward those things is with a "click" that is exactly as valuable as the click I give people who said something mildly funny.
High value posts tend to acquire a lot of Karma because a lot of people feel motivated to click. But I think there is a qualitative difference between a guy who makes one amazing post that gathers 80 Karma and a guy who makes 80 posts that are kinda neat. I think it would interesting, fun, and potentially valuable to distinguish between those kinds of people.
So what if we had regular Karma, and then we had some kind of Superkarma. (Perhaps a good name would be "Status"). Status points would be genuinely rare - when you give one, you are not allowed to give another one for at least 24 hours. You can still give them to a funny joke or viewpoint that aligns with your tribe, but I think assigning them rarity would encourage people to reward genuinely important things. (I'm not sure 24 hours is the ideal waiting period, it just sounded nice).
I'm actually kinda amazed by how much I care about Karma. I get a "sweet, level up!" message in my head every time I see that I've passed another 100 points. But most of my Karma is from random comments. The two fastest upvoted posts I made were links to an article about the Singularity and a webcomic, neither of which required much effort on my part. The fact that my more serious posts are judged by the same metric is (slightly) demotivating.