By using the anon account you choose not to connect your own account to this comment. So the usual reason to upvote presumably doesn’t apply. But if the common account gets a lot of karma somebody will use it for mass downvoting.
I don’t know if that’s the norm, but the code behind this site doesn’t give karma to a comment, but to an account also. Whenever you upvote something, you’re giving two points: one to the comment and one to the author. Since I’m not able to separate the two, I prefer to abstain in the case of a throwaway account, while I’m usually very liberal in the upvote I give.
When I upvote a comment I’m enabling the identity connected to that account. Obviously, if there’s nobody behind an account, I don’t feel the need to enable him or her.
So opinion and arguments don’t matter if there isn’t a name attached to them? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by ‘enable’ which isn’t very clear.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by ‘enable’ which isn’t very clear.
On sites like StackOverflow, and to some extent LessWrong, what actions an account can take is determined by its karma, and so upvoting an account is saying “this account should be able to do more,” which is problematic if it’s an open account. There’s also an implicit version of this, where people check out an unknown account’s karma to influence how they think about it.
I just changed username2 to have a 0x vote multiplier, so it can be used for anonymous commenting but not anonymous voting.
That’s a strange rule. Why?
By using the anon account you choose not to connect your own account to this comment. So the usual reason to upvote presumably doesn’t apply. But if the common account gets a lot of karma somebody will use it for mass downvoting.
The usual reason for upvoting is to promote the comment and not provide the commenter with resources in the form of karma.
I don’t know if that’s the norm, but the code behind this site doesn’t give karma to a comment, but to an account also. Whenever you upvote something, you’re giving two points: one to the comment and one to the author.
Since I’m not able to separate the two, I prefer to abstain in the case of a throwaway account, while I’m usually very liberal in the upvote I give.
Both are usual. (Which doesn’t necessarily means both are equally useful.)
When I upvote a comment I’m enabling the identity connected to that account. Obviously, if there’s nobody behind an account, I don’t feel the need to enable him or her.
So opinion and arguments don’t matter if there isn’t a name attached to them? Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by ‘enable’ which isn’t very clear.
On sites like StackOverflow, and to some extent LessWrong, what actions an account can take is determined by its karma, and so upvoting an account is saying “this account should be able to do more,” which is problematic if it’s an open account. There’s also an implicit version of this, where people check out an unknown account’s karma to influence how they think about it.
I just changed username2 to have a 0x vote multiplier, so it can be used for anonymous commenting but not anonymous voting.
The account username2 can only vote once in a poll.
What other permissions? The ability to make new top level posts? That seems like something you want an anonymous account to do.