= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on November 2012 Media Thread - 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 (88)
Meta Thread
Doom: Repercussions of Reaction
Multiheaded waited. The posts above him got downvoted and hidden from view. There were reactionaries on Less Wrong. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Konkvistador were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway. Multiheaded was a neurotic leftist for four years. When he was young he watched the internet debates and he said to dad "I want to be on the net daddy."
Dad said "No! You will BE TROLL BY REACTIONARIES!"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the Discussion section of LW he knew there were reactionaries.
"This is Konkvistador" the inbox crackered. "You must fight the reactionaries!"
So Multiheaded gotted his freudo-marxism and replied to comments.
"HE GOING TO KILL US" said the reactionaries
"I will troll at him" said the moldbugger and he fired the unqualified reservations. Multiheaded zizek'd at him and tried to blew him up. But then the server fell and they were trapped and not able to troll.
"No! I must kill the reactionaries" he typed.
The inbox said "No, Multiheaded. You are the reactionaries"
And then Multiheaded was a fascist.
This is simply beautiful.
My recent karma -
A quick rewrite of an old copypasta: +5.
Pat-on-the-back comment on a titillating story about the community leader: +4.
Attempts to (somewhat) seriously debate gender relations from the mainsteam position without insta-mindkilledness: net negative.
Gee, it sure is perverse incentives around here!
Perhaps there could be a debate on standards of karma, so that we may feel compelled to use a consistent, non-perverse system? By setting up what to strive for and what to avoid in some detail, we would make it easier for users to interpret punctuation. By agreeing on how we ought to vote, we may find ourselves voting more often in ways that satisfy our values, rather than our base/silly/suboptimal desires.
There have been attempts at such debate before. I don't know why, but they never seem to lead to anything.
I think the basic problem's unfixable.
Obvious jokes and back-patting comments are easy for readers to judge, so they get more extreme scores because it's easy to decide how to vote on them. Ideologically charged comments of questionable seriousness are harder to judge, as well as more divisive. Hard-to-judge comments are more likely to be misinterpreted (leading to downvotes) and more likely to be passed over by normal readers (leaving them at the mercy of the minority who feel strongly about the topic/poster).
I doubt debates can fix this asymmetry. If LW readers spent longer thinking about their votes on edgier comments, that'd help, but that won't happen because it's no fun to spend 5 minutes deciding which little Internet thumb to click.
How would they, when one is completely unaccountable on what they post? There seems to be no extrinsic incentive to be fair or constructive.
And easily automated too!