How does this proposal differ from those that would result from replacing the word “fluff” throughout by “boring”, “genius”, “Sanskrit”, or “Islamic theology”?
The poster is in control of a trade. The poster can choose to avoid negative karma, but only by taking the risk of the comment being hidden from many readers. (Perhaps hide fluff = fewer comments and show fluff = more comments).
It is only a little like an “evil bit”. It allows the poster to escape the consequences of evil (ie no down votes) by setting the evil bit. But that makes their attempts at evil easy to filter out.
What I was getting at, though, is that labelling it a fluff tag doesn’t make it one. People could use it for anything they like, and I predict it would end up being the resort of people resentful at getting heavily downvoted for their hobbyhorses.
That is an interesting prediction. If true, then the fluff tag will not work as I expected. If true, what else follows?
Perhaps those with hobbyhorses to ride will tag them fluff and not end up bitter at getting heavily downvoted. Meanwhile, most LessWrong’uns hide fluff and are unaware of the various strange obsessions. Perhaps that is a small improvement to the site?
If I make a fine distinction between “soft exclusion of people with hobbyhorses” and “soft exclusion of hobbyhorses” am I reading your comment too closely?
The current system offers individuals a choice: talk about your hobbyhorse and get down voted, or just shut up already! That strikes me as the “soft exclusion of people with hobbyhorses”. Having the option to talk about it, under the protection of the fluff tag is more friendly. It is soft inclusion of people.
But if most people read the site with the fluff hidden, the hobbyhorses are mostly invisible. I call that “soft exclusion of hobbyhorses”. Is it a feature or a bug? I don’t know.
You really think noone would mark own posts as fluff? I would mark some of my posts which are more conversations than public comments but relevant for some people enough not to make them PM.
Actually, maybe 3 fluff votes to mark as fuff would be a better alternative to current three-downvotes rule.
How does this proposal differ from those that would result from replacing the word “fluff” throughout by “boring”, “genius”, “Sanskrit”, or “Islamic theology”?
Reminds me of the “evil bit” RFC.
The poster is in control of a trade. The poster can choose to avoid negative karma, but only by taking the risk of the comment being hidden from many readers. (Perhaps hide fluff = fewer comments and show fluff = more comments).
It is only a little like an “evil bit”. It allows the poster to escape the consequences of evil (ie no down votes) by setting the evil bit. But that makes their attempts at evil easy to filter out.
What I was getting at, though, is that labelling it a fluff tag doesn’t make it one. People could use it for anything they like, and I predict it would end up being the resort of people resentful at getting heavily downvoted for their hobbyhorses.
That is an interesting prediction. If true, then the fluff tag will not work as I expected. If true, what else follows?
Perhaps those with hobbyhorses to ride will tag them fluff and not end up bitter at getting heavily downvoted. Meanwhile, most LessWrong’uns hide fluff and are unaware of the various strange obsessions. Perhaps that is a small improvement to the site?
Well, is soft exclusion of people with hobbyhorses a feature, or a bug?
I’m leaning towards “feature” for identity maintenance reasons, but this seems like an issue on which reasonable people could reasonably disagree.
If I make a fine distinction between “soft exclusion of people with hobbyhorses” and “soft exclusion of hobbyhorses” am I reading your comment too closely?
The current system offers individuals a choice: talk about your hobbyhorse and get down voted, or just shut up already! That strikes me as the “soft exclusion of people with hobbyhorses”. Having the option to talk about it, under the protection of the fluff tag is more friendly. It is soft inclusion of people.
But if most people read the site with the fluff hidden, the hobbyhorses are mostly invisible. I call that “soft exclusion of hobbyhorses”. Is it a feature or a bug? I don’t know.
You really think noone would mark own posts as fluff? I would mark some of my posts which are more conversations than public comments but relevant for some people enough not to make them PM.
Actually, maybe 3 fluff votes to mark as fuff would be a better alternative to current three-downvotes rule.