Is that akin to your model of “soviet russia style censorship”? I’m no expert on politics, but it sounds much more like American-style democracy to me.
I wasn’t aware that in a democracy the you had to first have majority approval to share your ideas on the main stage, or that ideas of the minority could be repressed. I also wasn’t aware that in a democracy the minority is not allowed to critique the majority. Or maybe you weren’t aware that to down vote requires a certain amount of positive Karma. How is any of the above mentioned things democratic? EDIT: There are democratic elements to the Karma system, but there exist within it undemocratic elements.
You can still upvote comments you like and ignore comments you don’t like, no matter how much karma you have. You can still make comments disagreeing with other comments-which to me seems like a much better way of voicing your ideas than a silent downvote.
I believe that the karma cap on making posts (20 karma needed for a top level post) is partly to make sure members understand the vocabulary and concepts used on LessWrong before they start making posts, and partly to keep out spambots.
You can still make comments disagreeing with other comments-which to me seems like a much better way of voicing your ideas than a silent downvote.
I think so to.
I believe that the karma cap on making posts (20 karma needed for a top level post) is partly to make sure members understand the vocabulary and concepts used on LessWrong before they start making posts,
I understand the purpose of it. I just think there are some problems with it.
Incidentally, I’m taking your subsequent rhetoric as confirmation that you did in fact intend the claim that your ideas are being repressed, since you don’t seem likely to explicitly answer that question anytime soon.
I do think the way negative karma works is a type of repression.
OK, thanks for clarifying that.
I infer further, from what you’ve said elsewhere, that it’s a type of repression that works by making some users less able to make comments/posts than others, and some comments less visible to readers than others, and some posts less visible to readers than others. Is that correct?
Assuming it is, I infer you consider it a bad thing for that reason. Is that correct?
Assuming it is, I infer you would consider it a better thing if all comments/posts were equally visible to readers, no matter how many readers considered those comments/posts valueless or valuable. Is that correct?
I am taking your subsequent rhetoric as confirmation that you do in fact agree “are you actually claiming” is a type of applause lights terminology.
I infer further, from what you’ve said elsewhere, that it’s a type of repression that works by making some users less able to make comments/posts than others, and some comments less visible to readers than others, and some posts less visible to readers than others. Is that correct?
Yes.
Assuming it is, I infer you consider it a bad thing for that reason. Is that correct?
No, not exactly. As I told swimmer in theory the karma system is a good idea. I do not think it would be better if all posts were equally visible, I think it would be better if there was a fairer system of down posting ideas.
Not exactly, In theory the idea of monitoring for trolling is good, but in my opinion, the LW karma system fails in practice.
First of all, do you believe that the up-down voting and down voting serves the purpose of filtering well written, interesting ideas? I feel a large portion of voting is based on rhetoric.
If a person uses any terminology that exists outside of the LW community, or uses a LW terminology in a different context, they are down-voted. Is this a valid reason to down vote someone? From what you and other LW members have said, I infer that the reason for down voting in these cases is to create a stable foundation of terminology to limit misunderstanding by limiting the number of accepted definitions of a term. Is that correct?
do you believe that the up-down voting and down voting serves the purpose of filtering well written, interesting ideas?
No, not especially. I think it serves the purpose of allowing filtering posts and comments that other LessWrong users consider valuable. Sometimes they consider stuff valuable because it’s well-written and interesting, yes. Sometimes because it’s funny. Sometimes because they agree with it. Sometimes because it’s engagingly contrarian. Sometimes for other reasons.
I feel a large portion of voting is based on rhetoric.
I would certainly agree with this. I’m not sure what you intend to capture by the contrast between “well-written” and “rhetoric,” though.
If a person uses any terminology that exists outside of the LW community, [..] they are down-voted.
That’s not just false, it’s downright bizarre. I would agree, though, that sometimes terminology is introduced to discussions in ways that people find valueless, and they vote accordingly.
If a person [..] uses a LW terminology in a different context, they are down-voted.
This is sometimes true, and sometimes false, depending (again) on whether the use is considered valuable or valueless.
Is this a valid reason to down vote someone?
Downvoting a comment/post because it does those things in a valueless way (and has no compensating value) is perfectly valid. Downvoting a comment/post because it does those things in a valuable way is not valid.
From what you and other LW members have said, I infer that the reason for down voting in these cases is to create a stable foundation of terminology to limit misunderstanding by limiting the number of accepted definitions of a term. Is that correct?
No, not especially. I would agree that that’s a fine thing, but I’d be really astonished if that were the reason for downvoting in any significant number of cases.
I don’t agree that it was an applause light specifically, but the distinction is relatively subtle and I’m uninterested in defending it, so we can agree it was an applause light for the sake of argument it if that helps you make some broader point. More generally, I agree that it was a rhetorical tactic in a similar class as applause lights.
It’s entirely possible to get karma by being critical of majority opinions here, if your points are well made. XiXiDu, for example, has 5777 karma at the time of this posting, and most of that has come from comments criticizing majority opinions here. Conversely, you can make a large number of comments that agree with majority positions here and not get any karma at all, if other members don’t feel you’re making any meaningful contribution.
Generally speaking, I find that simple assertions which run directly counter to mainstream positions here will tend to be downvoted, comments that run counter to mainstream positions with explanation, but which are poorly argued and/or written tend to be downvoted, and comments which run counter to mainstream positions which are moderately to well argued tend to be upvoted. Many people, myself included, will upvote comments whose conclusions they do not necessarily agree with, if they think it encourages useful discourse.
It’s probably hard not to be offended if a comment you’ve put thought into starts getting downvoted, but rather than assuming that the community is trying to stomp down dissenting views, I suggest adding a comment, or editing your original, to ask people to explain their reasons for downvoting. At least some people will probably answer.
Many people, myself included, will upvote comments whose conclusions they do not necessarily agree with, if they think it encourages useful discourse.
I’m more likely to upvote comments I disagree with, partly because I think I have more to learn from those ideas and I want to encourage the poster to keep posting.
I have an additional impulse to upvote well argued comments I disagree with, but I think it’s largely because I’m subconsciously trying to reinforce my own self perception as a fair and impartial person.
Is this a false overstatement, or is it merely hyperbole?
It uses ‘voting’, it correlates to some extent with the collective will of the community, and more than one person gets a say. It sounds much more democratic than a banhammer-wielding moderator and no karma, which is the default for web forums. If it seems “by no means” democratic to you, we definitely need to taboo “democratic”.
Is this a false overstatement, or is it merely hyperbole?
It uses ‘voting’, it correlates to some extent with the collective will of the community, and more than one person gets a say. It sounds much more democratic than a banhammer-wielding moderator and no karma, which is the default for web forums. If it seems “by no means” democratic to you, we definitely need to taboo “democratic”.
I wasn’t aware that in a democracy the you had to first have majority approval to share your ideas on the main stage, or that ideas of the minority could be repressed. I also wasn’t aware that in a democracy the minority is not allowed to critique the majority. Or maybe you weren’t aware that to down vote requires a certain amount of positive Karma. How is any of the above mentioned things democratic? EDIT: There are democratic elements to the Karma system, but there exist within it undemocratic elements.
You can still upvote comments you like and ignore comments you don’t like, no matter how much karma you have. You can still make comments disagreeing with other comments-which to me seems like a much better way of voicing your ideas than a silent downvote.
I believe that the karma cap on making posts (20 karma needed for a top level post) is partly to make sure members understand the vocabulary and concepts used on LessWrong before they start making posts, and partly to keep out spambots.
I think so to.
I understand the purpose of it. I just think there are some problems with it.
I’d forgotten that there was a karma-cap on downvotes, yes. (Also noted here.)
Thanks for the reminder.
Just for my edification: are you actually claiming that your ideas are being repressed, or was that implication meant as hyperbole?
I feel that your use of “actually claiming” and “repression” here falls under the category of applause light. mentioned by thomblake.
The fact that my essay becomes significantly harder to find because 11-27 people ( had some positives) disliked it, what would you call that?
My use of “repression” was quoting your use of it, which I consider appropriate, since I was referencing your claim.
And your use of “acutally claiming”?
Was not quoting anyone’s use of it.
Incidentally, I’m taking your subsequent rhetoric as confirmation that you did in fact intend the claim that your ideas are being repressed, since you don’t seem likely to explicitly answer that question anytime soon.
I do think the way negative karma works is a type of repression. Honestly I don’t see how you could think otherwise.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. What I meant was that you saying “are you actually claiming” is applause light. Do you disagree?
OK, thanks for clarifying that.
I infer further, from what you’ve said elsewhere, that it’s a type of repression that works by making some users less able to make comments/posts than others, and some comments less visible to readers than others, and some posts less visible to readers than others. Is that correct?
Assuming it is, I infer you consider it a bad thing for that reason. Is that correct?
Assuming it is, I infer you would consider it a better thing if all comments/posts were equally visible to readers, no matter how many readers considered those comments/posts valueless or valuable. Is that correct?
I am taking your subsequent rhetoric as confirmation that you do in fact agree “are you actually claiming” is a type of applause lights terminology.
Yes.
No, not exactly. As I told swimmer in theory the karma system is a good idea. I do not think it would be better if all posts were equally visible, I think it would be better if there was a fairer system of down posting ideas. Not exactly, In theory the idea of monitoring for trolling is good, but in my opinion, the LW karma system fails in practice.
First of all, do you believe that the up-down voting and down voting serves the purpose of filtering well written, interesting ideas? I feel a large portion of voting is based on rhetoric.
If a person uses any terminology that exists outside of the LW community, or uses a LW terminology in a different context, they are down-voted. Is this a valid reason to down vote someone? From what you and other LW members have said, I infer that the reason for down voting in these cases is to create a stable foundation of terminology to limit misunderstanding by limiting the number of accepted definitions of a term. Is that correct?
No, not especially. I think it serves the purpose of allowing filtering posts and comments that other LessWrong users consider valuable. Sometimes they consider stuff valuable because it’s well-written and interesting, yes. Sometimes because it’s funny. Sometimes because they agree with it. Sometimes because it’s engagingly contrarian. Sometimes for other reasons.
I would certainly agree with this. I’m not sure what you intend to capture by the contrast between “well-written” and “rhetoric,” though.
That’s not just false, it’s downright bizarre.
I would agree, though, that sometimes terminology is introduced to discussions in ways that people find valueless, and they vote accordingly.
This is sometimes true, and sometimes false, depending (again) on whether the use is considered valuable or valueless.
Downvoting a comment/post because it does those things in a valueless way (and has no compensating value) is perfectly valid. Downvoting a comment/post because it does those things in a valuable way is not valid.
No, not especially. I would agree that that’s a fine thing, but I’d be really astonished if that were the reason for downvoting in any significant number of cases.
I don’t agree that it was an applause light specifically, but the distinction is relatively subtle and I’m uninterested in defending it, so we can agree it was an applause light for the sake of argument it if that helps you make some broader point. More generally, I agree that it was a rhetorical tactic in a similar class as applause lights.
I don’t think you’ve grokked that expression.
It’s entirely possible to get karma by being critical of majority opinions here, if your points are well made. XiXiDu, for example, has 5777 karma at the time of this posting, and most of that has come from comments criticizing majority opinions here. Conversely, you can make a large number of comments that agree with majority positions here and not get any karma at all, if other members don’t feel you’re making any meaningful contribution.
Generally speaking, I find that simple assertions which run directly counter to mainstream positions here will tend to be downvoted, comments that run counter to mainstream positions with explanation, but which are poorly argued and/or written tend to be downvoted, and comments which run counter to mainstream positions which are moderately to well argued tend to be upvoted. Many people, myself included, will upvote comments whose conclusions they do not necessarily agree with, if they think it encourages useful discourse.
It’s probably hard not to be offended if a comment you’ve put thought into starts getting downvoted, but rather than assuming that the community is trying to stomp down dissenting views, I suggest adding a comment, or editing your original, to ask people to explain their reasons for downvoting. At least some people will probably answer.
I’m more likely to upvote comments I disagree with, partly because I think I have more to learn from those ideas and I want to encourage the poster to keep posting.
I have an additional impulse to upvote well argued comments I disagree with, but I think it’s largely because I’m subconsciously trying to reinforce my own self perception as a fair and impartial person.
Maybe my tone was off, but the one time I directly asked for an explanation for a downvote, all I got was another downvote.
I would like to say for the record that that sucks, and that whoever did that second downvote should feel like a jerk.
Is this a false overstatement, or is it merely hyperbole?
It uses ‘voting’, it correlates to some extent with the collective will of the community, and more than one person gets a say. It sounds much more democratic than a banhammer-wielding moderator and no karma, which is the default for web forums. If it seems “by no means” democratic to you, we definitely need to taboo “democratic”.
It is a false overstatment. I agree with your point.
Is this a false overstatement, or is it merely hyperbole?
It uses ‘voting’, it correlates to some extent with the collective will of the community, and more than one person gets a say. It sounds much more democratic than a banhammer-wielding moderator and no karma, which is the default for web forums. If it seems “by no means” democratic to you, we definitely need to taboo “democratic”.