= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 2015 - 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 (346)
I think such people may be more harmful to the voting system than the usual vote manipulation.
Your vote should express whether you want to see more of something or less of something on LessWrong. Not to be used strategically to counter other people's votes. Then not only you don't contribute to the system, but also remove other people's contributions. What is it exactly you aim for? A webpage where no one will bother to downvote annoying content, because they will know someone else will immediately upvote it back?
You should upvote only those comments you would upvote regardless of their current score.
That's one possible interpretation of voting on LW. It is not the only one possible. Do you think one can apply terms like "correct" or "wrong" to these interpretations?