= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Lesswrong Potential Changes - 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)
Well, if they cannot even solve the existing problems, then I have to predict that the existing problems will continue to exist, duh.
A different solution would be okay too. But some solution is needed. And I violate the virtue of silence again by saying that as a determined user, I could ruin the website in a weekend, even without scripting. (With scripting, I could make a program that ruins the website at any moment at a click of a button.) Eugine is really picking just the absolutely lowest hanging fruit; and fixing that already creates about 50% of moderators' work. Multiply this by ten, and LW will not have enough manpower to deal with the problems. A script could multiply it by a million.
When a user has admin on, they can see the list of users who upvoted or downvoted a comment in the tooltip (which currently shows % positive).
All karma calculations use a 'weight' variable that's stored per user, and can be adjusted at the userpage by a user with admin on.
That means shutting down sockpuppets is two clicks, and discovering them is a mouseover. The main uncertainty is how the weight variable will impact the performance of the site.
The "weight" only needs values 0 and 1. And the value 0 can be achieved by disabling the buttons (which has negligible impact on performance) and removing the existing votes (which only happens one per user).