Some time in the past couple hours, I got karmassassinated. Somebody went through and downvoted about 30 or so comments I’ve made, including utterly uncontroversial entries like this one and this one. It’s a trivial hit for me, but I mention it in case anyone is gathering data points to identify the source of the problem.
Curious, I was just now seeking the latest Open Thread so that I could make the same observation—with near the same wording. If my memory of previous vote counts is correct then the change for me was exactly −3 across the board, for uncontroversial posts as much as the controversial ones. I wonder if our interactions in the past day or so include any overlap with respect to who we were arguing with. That wouldn’t be nearly enough evidence to be confident about the culprit(s?) but enough to prompt keeping an eye out. Like you the hit is trivial to me (it doesn’t put a dent in the ~30k karma and even the last week karma remains distinctly positive).
Those karmassassains (and some others who share their ill-will but have different ethics) may be pleased to note that I’m likely to give them exactly what they want. This is a rare enough response for me that I can’t help but share my surprise. I am candidly and highly averse to supplying an incentive structure whereby defective behaviour is rewarded with desired outcomes rather than worse outcomes. As a core aesthetic that pattern is abhorrent to me. Yet even for me the preference has limits and the opportunity cost for satisfying that preference can be too high.
There are many people on lesswrong that I respect and value discussing and exploring new concepts with. Yet by the very nature of internet forums the people who are most valuable to talk to aren’t the ones you end up talking to the most. Simply because putting “I agree” all over the place is considered spam and it is hard to reply in a cooperative ‘agree and elaborate to keep the ideas flowing’ manner because people are so damn conditioned to consider all replies to be somewhere at the core arguments opposing them or to be condescension.
I decided six months ago that for me personally the impulses regarding people wrong on the internet are too much of a liability now that the demographic here has changed so drastically from when we seeded the site with the OvercomingBias migration. I might try back in another six months—or perhaps if I reconfigure my supplement regime more in the direction of things that I know increase my inclination towards navigating petty social games elegantly. For now, however, real world people are just so much more enjoyable to talk to than internet people.
To the various folk I’ve been chatting to over PM: I’m not snobbing you, I’m just not here.
I don’t understand: are you leaving the forum because of the karmassassins or because of “people wrong on the internet”? These seem like very different reasons.
You’d be missed, wedrifid. Not that my opinion counts for much (being one tenth the veteran you are), but there you have it.
(I did downvote you occasionally. I also am in favor of more explicit rules regarding what voting patterns are considered to be abusive versus valid expressions of one’s intent. There is no consensus even amongst old-timers, if memory serves e.g. Vladimir Nesov—among others—saw karmassassinations as a valid way of signalling that you’d like someone to leave the forums. There may an illusion of transparency at work—what is an obvious misuse to you may not seem so to others, unless told so explicitly. ETA: I’d like some instructions from the editor on this topic, a.k.a. “I NEED AN ADULT!”)
I don’t endorse indiscriminate downvoting, but occasionally point out that fast systematic downvoting can result from fair judgement of a batch of systematically bad comments.
(Prismattic’s counterexamples, if indeed from the same set, indicate that it’s not the case here.)
Curious, I was just now seeking the latest Open Thread so that I could make the same observation—with near the same wording. If my memory of previous vote counts is correct then the change for me was exactly −3 across the board, for uncontroversial posts as much as the controversial ones. I wonder if our interactions in the past day or so include any overlap with respect to who we were arguing with. That wouldn’t be nearly enough evidence to be confident about the culprit(s?) but enough to prompt keeping an eye out. Like you the hit is trivial to me (it doesn’t put a dent in the ~30k karma and even the last week karma remains distinctly positive).
Those karmassassains (and some others who share their ill-will but have different ethics) may be pleased to note that I’m likely to give them exactly what they want. This is a rare enough response for me that I can’t help but share my surprise. I am candidly and highly averse to supplying an incentive structure whereby defective behaviour is rewarded with desired outcomes rather than worse outcomes. As a core aesthetic that pattern is abhorrent to me. Yet even for me the preference has limits and the opportunity cost for satisfying that preference can be too high.
There are many people on lesswrong that I respect and value discussing and exploring new concepts with. Yet by the very nature of internet forums the people who are most valuable to talk to aren’t the ones you end up talking to the most. Simply because putting “I agree” all over the place is considered spam and it is hard to reply in a cooperative ‘agree and elaborate to keep the ideas flowing’ manner because people are so damn conditioned to consider all replies to be somewhere at the core arguments opposing them or to be condescension.
I decided six months ago that for me personally the impulses regarding people wrong on the internet are too much of a liability now that the demographic here has changed so drastically from when we seeded the site with the OvercomingBias migration. I might try back in another six months—or perhaps if I reconfigure my supplement regime more in the direction of things that I know increase my inclination towards navigating petty social games elegantly. For now, however, real world people are just so much more enjoyable to talk to than internet people.
To the various folk I’ve been chatting to over PM: I’m not snobbing you, I’m just not here.
I don’t understand: are you leaving the forum because of the karmassassins or because of “people wrong on the internet”? These seem like very different reasons.
You’d be missed, wedrifid. Not that my opinion counts for much (being one tenth the veteran you are), but there you have it.
(I did downvote you occasionally. I also am in favor of more explicit rules regarding what voting patterns are considered to be abusive versus valid expressions of one’s intent. There is no consensus even amongst old-timers, if memory serves e.g. Vladimir Nesov—among others—saw karmassassinations as a valid way of signalling that you’d like someone to leave the forums. There may an illusion of transparency at work—what is an obvious misuse to you may not seem so to others, unless told so explicitly. ETA: I’d like some instructions from the editor on this topic, a.k.a. “I NEED AN ADULT!”)
I don’t endorse indiscriminate downvoting, but occasionally point out that fast systematic downvoting can result from fair judgement of a batch of systematically bad comments.
(Prismattic’s counterexamples, if indeed from the same set, indicate that it’s not the case here.)