So one user spent 465 of their 500 available votes to downvote “Realism about Rationality”.
I wonder whether that reflects exceptionally strong dislike of that post, or whether it means that they voted “No” on that and nothing on anything else, and then the −30 is just what the quadratic-vote-allocator turned that into.
I suspect the latter, and further suspect that whoever it was might not have wanted their vote interpreted quite that way. (Not with much confidence in either case.)
If a similar system is used on future occasions, it might be a good idea to limit how strong votes are made for users who don’t cast many votes. Of course you should be able to spend your whole budget on downvoting one thing you really hate, but you should have to do it deliberately and consciously.
If a similar system is used on future occasions, it might be a good idea to limit how strong votes are made for users who don’t cast many votes.
The quadratic-vote-allocator’s multiplier of non-quadratic votes was capped at a multiplier of 6x. A “No” vote starts out with a cost −4, so even if you only voted “No” on one item, it wouldn’t become more than a cost of 24 which translates into a vote with weight −6.
Yep, we considered this case, and so intentionally capped how much quadratic vote weight a single qualitative vote can translate to. So I am quite confident that this was intentional.
So one user spent 465 of their 500 available votes to downvote “Realism about Rationality”.
I wonder whether that reflects exceptionally strong dislike of that post, or whether it means that they voted “No” on that and nothing on anything else, and then the −30 is just what the quadratic-vote-allocator turned that into.
I suspect the latter, and further suspect that whoever it was might not have wanted their vote interpreted quite that way. (Not with much confidence in either case.)
If a similar system is used on future occasions, it might be a good idea to limit how strong votes are made for users who don’t cast many votes. Of course you should be able to spend your whole budget on downvoting one thing you really hate, but you should have to do it deliberately and consciously.
The quadratic-vote-allocator’s multiplier of non-quadratic votes was capped at a multiplier of 6x. A “No” vote starts out with a cost −4, so even if you only voted “No” on one item, it wouldn’t become more than a cost of 24 which translates into a vote with weight −6.
I’d say the −30 was intentional.
Yep, we considered this case, and so intentionally capped how much quadratic vote weight a single qualitative vote can translate to. So I am quite confident that this was intentional.
Ah, OK. I’m convinced :-).
Easy to make it possible with explicit quadratic voting but not interpret people who use non-quadratic voting to cast only 1-3 votes in this way.