1) Some of your earlier comments, especially those most negatively rated, set off all of my “political talking points” alarm bells. I note that many of your later comments aren’t so rated, and that you seem to be improving in your message-conveyance.
2) Your replies to replies seem to be going fairly well so far.
3) I agree that it is only potential. Thomblake posted a good link on that very topic, and it is also why I said the case had not been made, and put the phrase in quotes. However, calling it specious and saying I would agree with any system is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Just because it’s a potential bias doesn’t mean that it is necessarily in effect, nor that its effects are so strong that it shows things are obviously broken. We do a lot of probabilistic thinking around here...
Since we’re doing probabilistic thinking, I would assign a great probability to the current system being imperfect, simply because (1) it is the system with which the site was designed prior to developing experience, and (2) the system is observed to have faults.
These faults seem to be fixable by making voting costlier, prompting readers to invest more thought when they decide to vote. I don’t even expect that this would necessarily improve my karma, but I think it would increase thoughtfulness, decrease reactivity, and improve quality overall.
There should probably be a daily limit to how many comments people can make, too. I think it would encourage longer and more thoughtful comments rather than shorter and more reactive ones.
it is the system with which the site was designed prior to developing experience
Patently false.
There should probably be a daily limit to how many comments people can make, too. I think it would encourage longer and more thoughtful comments rather than shorter and more reactive ones.
1) Some of your earlier comments, especially those most negatively rated, set off all of my “political talking points” alarm bells. I note that many of your later comments aren’t so rated, and that you seem to be improving in your message-conveyance.
2) Your replies to replies seem to be going fairly well so far.
3) I agree that it is only potential. Thomblake posted a good link on that very topic, and it is also why I said the case had not been made, and put the phrase in quotes. However, calling it specious and saying I would agree with any system is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Just because it’s a potential bias doesn’t mean that it is necessarily in effect, nor that its effects are so strong that it shows things are obviously broken. We do a lot of probabilistic thinking around here...
Since we’re doing probabilistic thinking, I would assign a great probability to the current system being imperfect, simply because (1) it is the system with which the site was designed prior to developing experience, and (2) the system is observed to have faults.
These faults seem to be fixable by making voting costlier, prompting readers to invest more thought when they decide to vote. I don’t even expect that this would necessarily improve my karma, but I think it would increase thoughtfulness, decrease reactivity, and improve quality overall.
There should probably be a daily limit to how many comments people can make, too. I think it would encourage longer and more thoughtful comments rather than shorter and more reactive ones.
Patently false.
I disagree on both points.