If that’s the only explanation you can think of for the pattern of voting you see, you’re not ready to post here. Remember, few here give a damn about the case one way or the other, except as an example for training our brains.
EDIT: since you’re an SIAI donor, I’ll cut you a little more slack than I did here, as per Wei Dai’s comment.
EDIT: since you’re an SIAI donor, I’ll cut you a little more slack than I did here, as per Wei Dai’s comment.
Vote reversed. This is a discussion forum, not a prediction market. The latter is the information processing mechanism for which a financial contribution can be expected to increase the quality of outcomes irrespective of bias.
I’m missing something in your argument. I’m saying that now that I know that Rolf has a demonstrated, concrete commitment to caring about the core issues of this site, I’ll treat him differently than when I thought he was just some guy obsessed with the Kercher thing. You think I’m making a mistake? Could you help me see it?
I suspect I am not giving you enough slack while executing my “discourage pollution of lesswrong discussions with external status games” policy. Since you were initially saying things like ‘not ready to contribute here’ and this was based partly on the assumption that Rolf was just Kercher obsessed finding out who Rolf is does actually have relevance.
I’m going to do half a reversal and go to ‘no vote’. Only half because while Rolf isn’t ‘just’ a Kercher obsessed guy he is still a Kercher obsessed guy for the purposes of his contribution here. Knowing he is also in tune with existential risk issues and related issues in general does make a difference but not that much. (In fact, right or wrong I actually kind of expect better from someone with that kind of status.)
Well, there’s donor and there’s donor… and when someone can have a reasonable claim to having helped build this very site with money rather than words and is currently sponsoring matching donations, it doesn’t hurt for us to be a little nicer than we would to some random person that got downvoted below zero karma.
Btw, some self-doubt for you, I’m not positing that this is entirely rational, just that it doesn’t hurt.
Try to look at the current voting pattern on the comments to “Amanda Knox Test” and tell me there’s not a correlation between favoring Knox’s innocence and getting upvoted. (Don’t forget to load all the comments so you see the people who are negative despite making reasoned comments about the case.)
All sorts. For example, if I rate someone highly and they write something that at first glance seems to be obviously wrong, I’m more likely to put time into seeing if I’ve missed something.
If that’s the only explanation you can think of for the pattern of voting you see, you’re not ready to post here. Remember, few here give a damn about the case one way or the other, except as an example for training our brains.
EDIT: since you’re an SIAI donor, I’ll cut you a little more slack than I did here, as per Wei Dai’s comment.
Vote reversed. This is a discussion forum, not a prediction market. The latter is the information processing mechanism for which a financial contribution can be expected to increase the quality of outcomes irrespective of bias.
I’m missing something in your argument. I’m saying that now that I know that Rolf has a demonstrated, concrete commitment to caring about the core issues of this site, I’ll treat him differently than when I thought he was just some guy obsessed with the Kercher thing. You think I’m making a mistake? Could you help me see it?
I suspect I am not giving you enough slack while executing my “discourage pollution of lesswrong discussions with external status games” policy. Since you were initially saying things like ‘not ready to contribute here’ and this was based partly on the assumption that Rolf was just Kercher obsessed finding out who Rolf is does actually have relevance.
I’m going to do half a reversal and go to ‘no vote’. Only half because while Rolf isn’t ‘just’ a Kercher obsessed guy he is still a Kercher obsessed guy for the purposes of his contribution here. Knowing he is also in tune with existential risk issues and related issues in general does make a difference but not that much. (In fact, right or wrong I actually kind of expect better from someone with that kind of status.)
Well, there’s donor and there’s donor… and when someone can have a reasonable claim to having helped build this very site with money rather than words and is currently sponsoring matching donations, it doesn’t hurt for us to be a little nicer than we would to some random person that got downvoted below zero karma.
Btw, some self-doubt for you, I’m not positing that this is entirely rational, just that it doesn’t hurt.
Try to look at the current voting pattern on the comments to “Amanda Knox Test” and tell me there’s not a correlation between favoring Knox’s innocence and getting upvoted. (Don’t forget to load all the comments so you see the people who are negative despite making reasoned comments about the case.)
Just for the record, I’m also an SIAI donor.
You don’t currently need any extra slack from me though :-)
May I ask what exactly this slack consists of in the context?
All sorts. For example, if I rate someone highly and they write something that at first glance seems to be obviously wrong, I’m more likely to put time into seeing if I’ve missed something.