= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I am new here. But what about just disable downvoting?
Please no. Disabling downvoting would just turn "voting" into a popularity contest. Downvotes work well overall, and abuse of the karma system is quite rare.
Disabling downvoting would just turn "voting" into a popularity contest.
Downvoting doesn't stop it from being a popularity contest. If you don't like someone, you can vote them down just as much as you can vote up people you like.
In response to
comment
by
on
[moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment
He purposefully attempted to remove other contributing members from the community. He also did not confess to it
Never publicly, but I believe that (when he was posting as "Eugine Nier") a moderator did question him privately about it and he said that was his intention.
In response to
comment
by
on
[moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment
Yes, he confessed to it when confronted. My understanding was that there were posts about mass downvoting and people asking who was doing it and if it was happening and he never admitted it or posted in them to confirm it, whereas if he thought it was okay there was no reason for him not to.
In response to
comment
by
on
[moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment
The suspicion was public, sure. There was no official confirmation and no indication that Eugene is the only one.
In response to
comment
by
on
[moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment
He didn't just mass downvote. He purposefully attempted to remove other contributing members from the community. He also did not confess to it indicating both dishonesty and that he was aware that his actions were unacceptable. He also multi-accounted and still does and posts absolutely disgusting and logic-free racial comments and trolling (referring to black scientists to "dancing bears." You're welcome to demonstrate what's rational or constructive about that).
You don't just undo those actions, you punish the person who takes part in them in order to deter the action occurring in the future. So that there can be civil discourse going forward. This is rational and a standard part of human social requirements.
You can be telling people what they already know and flouting tradition even if that's not your goal :-). Seriously, I think part of the point of the "rule" (in so far as it is a rule) is to disable what would otherwise be a cheap strategy for getting lots of karma without actually adding much value or demonstrating good sense or cleverness or anything: look through 5-year-old Rationality Quotes threads and repost the ones that got the most upvotes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not accusing you of doing that! I'm saying that you've done, for other reasons, something that's frowned on because not frowning on it would open the way for that sort of misbehaviour.
Well I'm not interested in copy/pasting for cheap karma, and I don't wish to encourage or create an environment where others do it. All the best, no offense taken and hopefully no offense caused.
It is a useful idea, indeed, but it's familiar enough that it doesn't particularly need repeating, and the tradition here is not to repeat quotations at all. (Isn't it?)
The goal is not to tell people what they already know nor flout tradition. Just to share a quote from the Slack Chat that some segment of the thread readers may find useful.
Chesterton's Fence is a well-known concept on LessWrong and frequently alluded to. It even has an entry in the wiki, containing this exact quote.
It's a great concept.
Posted before: December 2012 and February 2010 before that.
3 years is enough time.
In response to
Rationality Quotes Thread November 2015
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." -GK Chesterton
It would be useful to present an example and express your beliefs of how strongly you should update in numbers.
Just to underline here...philosophy has a bad track record because when it finds something concrete and useful, it gets split off into things like science and ethics, and very abstract things tend to be all that's left.
Hypotheticals are probably in the same class. Useful when they apply to reality, entertaining or stimulating sometimes even when they don't...and in some cases neither. The third category is the one I ignore.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Looks interesting. I may try writing an article or two to help the environment along.