I would have no way to correct the wedrifid votes.
If there are viewers of the post who are sufficiently similar to you, they will correct the wedrifid votes. A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
That is a strategy to get votes. If it so happened that wedrifid was particularly different to people here then modifying himself to be more similar to the norm would result in more votes but also more error states. Because all comments of the modified wedrifid that the original wedrifid would have objected to that get upvoted would constitute “error states” from the perspective of the wedrifid making the choice of whether to self modify. ie. Ghandi doesn’t take the murder pill.
Just to be clear, I would not label all instances of wedrifid being downvoted or having less votes than the other person in a conversation as ‘error states’, just that in this specific conversation it would be a bad thing if that were the case. Obviously this is expected to be uncontroversial at least as the expected assumption from my perspective.
(I corrected the conversation’s votes.)
I corrected the conversation’s votes too. Someone downvoted the parent!
I think he means that if the interlocutor votes but you do not then you must get 1 more vote on average from the observers than the interlocutor does.
That assumes you’re conversing with people who desire error states (from your perspective).
That seems true. ie. It assumes a downvote from the interlocutor when their downvote would constitute an error state. Without that assumption the ‘moreso’ is required only by way of creating an error margin.
My conception of error states was a little more general—the advice and assumptions wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
Such conversations happen rather often and I usually find it sufficient reason to discontinue the otherwise useful conversation. The information gained about public perception based on the feedback from observers completely changes what can be said and modifies how any given statement will be interpreted. Too annoying to deal with and a tad offensive. Not necessarily the fault of the interlocutor but the attitudes of the interlocutor’s supporters still necessitates abandoning free conversation or information exchange with them and instead treating the situation as one of social politics.
If there are viewers of the post who are sufficiently similar to you, they will correct the wedrifid votes. A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
(I corrected the conversation’s votes.)
That is a strategy to get votes. If it so happened that wedrifid was particularly different to people here then modifying himself to be more similar to the norm would result in more votes but also more error states. Because all comments of the modified wedrifid that the original wedrifid would have objected to that get upvoted would constitute “error states” from the perspective of the wedrifid making the choice of whether to self modify. ie. Ghandi doesn’t take the murder pill.
Just to be clear, I would not label all instances of wedrifid being downvoted or having less votes than the other person in a conversation as ‘error states’, just that in this specific conversation it would be a bad thing if that were the case. Obviously this is expected to be uncontroversial at least as the expected assumption from my perspective.
I corrected the conversation’s votes too. Someone downvoted the parent!
Ah, that was the false assumption I made. Cheers!
To be sure, most would be. But I’m sure in all the comments I’ve made over the years there is at least one that I would downvote in hindsight! ;)
Why moreso than your interlocutor? That assumes you’re conversing with people who desire error states (from your perspective).
I think he means that if the interlocutor votes but you do not then you must get 1 more vote on average from the observers than the interlocutor does.
That seems true. ie. It assumes a downvote from the interlocutor when their downvote would constitute an error state. Without that assumption the ‘moreso’ is required only by way of creating an error margin.
My conception of error states was a little more general—the advice and assumptions wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
Such conversations happen rather often and I usually find it sufficient reason to discontinue the otherwise useful conversation. The information gained about public perception based on the feedback from observers completely changes what can be said and modifies how any given statement will be interpreted. Too annoying to deal with and a tad offensive. Not necessarily the fault of the interlocutor but the attitudes of the interlocutor’s supporters still necessitates abandoning free conversation or information exchange with them and instead treating the situation as one of social politics.