You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

MugaSofer comments on Call For Agreement: Should LessWrong have better protection against cultural collapse? - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 05:35AM

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

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: MugaSofer 07 January 2013 12:53:26AM -1 points [-]

... downvotes are a limited resource?

Comment author: wedrifid 07 January 2013 07:51:47AM 0 points [-]

... downvotes are a limited resource?

Not particularly limited. At least not limited to anyone who is remotely active, not a lurker and isn't always a troll. You have 4 times as many total downvotes you can give as you have karma.

Comment author: Document 17 January 2013 07:12:27PM 0 points [-]

I just noticed your implication. So, which am I; inactive, a lurker or a troll, and why does it mean my votes shouldn't count?

Comment author: wedrifid 17 January 2013 08:28:22PM 0 points [-]

I just noticed your implication. So, which am I; inactive, a lurker or a troll

Perhaps you noticed an implication but not one of mine? At least that must be the case if you take it as an implication personal to you. I responded to MugaSofer's question from the recent comments thread and so didn't know any context that pertains to yourself.

As a literal answer to your question I assume that your weeding vs commenting ratio must be higher than average. That would place you somewhat towards the 'lurker' end of the spectrum. That needn't be considered offensive---it indicates having other higher priorities and the ability to restrain oneself from impulses to waste time arguing on the internet.

, and why does it mean my votes shouldn't count?

I approve of the downvote limitation by karma as it stands (unless a new, smarter system is coded). It isn't a perfect indicator of how much consideration should be granted to a HTTP request representing a click by certain account but it is adequate for the task. If I were personally allocating the right to vote on an individual basis then I would grant you an unlimited supply of votes since from what I recall of your comments you meet the requisite standard of having-a-clue. But I don't consider the automated and rather trivial system of raw karma totals to have the necessary information to make that judgement so are not especially outraged that you reached your quota.

The reason why accounts with low karma are limited in how much they can vote is because the anthropomorphised karma system doesn't feel like it knows enough about the quality of your thinking to be comfortable granting you the amount of influence you are attempting to have by enacting judgement. Fortunately it isn't exactly a complicated or strenuous task to establish trust with the karma system by writing a few comments or pasting in some inspirational quotes. In fact, anyone who did find it hard to work out how to gain karma by making comments is not likely to be the kind of person whose votes I would find personally useful.

Comment author: Document 09 January 2013 04:13:00AM 0 points [-]

I didn't think my meaning was ambiguous; apologies if so.

Comment author: MugaSofer 07 January 2013 08:51:48PM -1 points [-]

Huh. You learn something new every day.