Curious, I was just now seeking the latest Open Thread so that I could make the same observation---with near the same wording. If my memory of previous vote counts is correct then the change for me was exactly -3 across the board, for uncontroversial posts as much as the controversial ones. I wonder if our interactions in the past day or so include any overlap with respect to who we were arguing with. That wouldn't be nearly enough evidence to be confident about the culprit(s?) but enough to prompt keeping an eye out. Like you the hit is trivial to me (it doesn't put a dent in the ~30k karma and even the last week karma remains distinctly positive). Those karmassassains (and some others who share their ill-will but have different ethics) may be pleased to note that I'm likely to give them exactly what they want. This is a rare enough response for me that I can't help but share my surprise. I am candidly and highly averse to supplying an incentive structure whereby defective behaviour is rewarded with desired outcomes rather than worse outcomes. As a core aesthetic that pattern is abhorrent to me. Yet even for me the preference has limits and the opportunity cost for satisfying that preference can be too high. There are many people on lesswrong that I respect and value discussing and exploring new concepts with. Yet by the very nature of internet forums the people who are most valuable to talk to aren't the ones you end up talking to the most. Simply because putting "I agree" all over the place is considered spam and it is hard to reply in a cooperative 'agree and elaborate to keep the ideas flowing' manner because people are so damn conditioned to consider all replies to be somewhere at the core arguments opposing them or to be condescension. I decided six months ago that for me personally the impulses regarding people wrong on the internet are too much of a liability now that the demographic here has changed so drastically from when we seeded the site with the O