= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on [META] Karma for last 30 days? - 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 (173)
That would only make sense for posters with, say, negative karma in the last month. Otherwise this results in (self-)censoring of controversial comments.
It's almost always possible to package controversial claims so that the posts/comments communicating them would be upvoted (and would be better for that).
True, though I hoped that this forum would not demand as high a level of political correctness. Especially given that there is a simple technical solution.
Censoring seems to be the point.
Censoring trolls seems to be the point, not censoring discussions of potentially controversial comments left by the respected forum regulars.
Where you see a troll, I may see an insightful fellow.
I always wonder why so many people assume that the censoring gun can only blast people they want censored.
Hence my suggestion of only applying it to those with negative 30-day karma. This excludes spuriously downvoted comments and prevents most malicious sniping strategies.
Ok, I was speaking to the original policy.
Your policy looks well targeted to people I'd consider trolls. The thing is, I think the people in favor of the original policy have a much broader view of what constitutes a troll.
Seems like a sizable minority want a lot of other people to shut up.