Actually, I was going to recommend against a detailed formal policy. Codified rules seems like an invitation for passionate arguments about Stuff That Doesn’t Matter™. If we need a rule, how about:
If you are acting in a way incongruent with the greater harmony of LessWrong, a moderator may private message to ask you to stop. If you don’t stop, you may be banned.
Also have a stated social norm:
Don’t downvote comments because of the author. There’s no hard and fast rule, but if you’ve downvoted someone more than 8 times in one day or read through someone’s comment history and downvoted past the first page, you are doing something wrong.
In the specific case of mass downvoting, if a moderator gets a complaint I think the typical procedure should be:
Moderator private messages the alleged downvoter a non-accusatory FYI letting them know that someone felt they were heavy on the thumbs-down and it might be a good idea to take a breather
If vindictive downvoting continues, look into the logs, do some quantitative analysis, and evaluate. Most probable conclusion is that the downvoter isn’t being vindictive. But if, regrettably, the downvoter appears to have a bullying voting pattern, the moderator should private message them “Really, you should stop. Even if there are good reasons for all of your downvotes, you shouldn’t continue just because it looks bad. There are plenty of other people are around who can pick up the slack if you bow out of downvoting.”
If abusive downvoting continues, give a final warning, then ban.
But before you complain to a moderator: Please consider the possibility that your comments are just bad, that someone might disagree with you for legitimate reasons, and that negative feedback is information positive.
There’s no hard and fast rule, but if you’ve downvoted someone more than 8 times in one day or read through someone’s comment history and downvoted past the first page, you are doing something wrong.
It’s not wrong if most of what the user writes is bad. The wrong thing is to act on an incorrect judgement, something that won’t be supported by idealized community. The heuristic you suggest limits influence, which guards against consequences of overconfidence. In some cases, you can see that there is no mistake.
There’s no hard and fast rule, but if you’ve downvoted someone more than 8 times in one day or read through someone’s comment history and downvoted past the first page, you are doing something wrong.
It’s not wrong if most of what the user writes is bad.
I tend to agree with the first statement as a rule of thumb. If you’re reading and downvoting 8 postings in a day that you think are not worth reading (apparently), it seems like you’re taking it upon yourself to punish that person, whereas I think it is better if we try to read what we consider to be valuable, and if we happen across some writing that seems bad, sure, critique it with a −1 if that seems worthwhile, but don’t go on a jag reading all the bad (by your standards) writing you can find and downvoting it.
If you are acting in a way incongruent with the greater harmony of LessWrong, a moderator may private message to ask you to stop. If you don’t stop, you may be banned.
Harmony is near the bottom of the list of values I want to see enforced. Probably below oral hygiene.
Actually, I was going to recommend against a detailed formal policy. Codified rules seems like an invitation for passionate arguments about Stuff That Doesn’t Matter™. If we need a rule, how about:
If you are acting in a way incongruent with the greater harmony of LessWrong, a moderator may private message to ask you to stop. If you don’t stop, you may be banned.
Also have a stated social norm:
Don’t downvote comments because of the author. There’s no hard and fast rule, but if you’ve downvoted someone more than 8 times in one day or read through someone’s comment history and downvoted past the first page, you are doing something wrong.
In the specific case of mass downvoting, if a moderator gets a complaint I think the typical procedure should be:
Moderator private messages the alleged downvoter a non-accusatory FYI letting them know that someone felt they were heavy on the thumbs-down and it might be a good idea to take a breather
If vindictive downvoting continues, look into the logs, do some quantitative analysis, and evaluate. Most probable conclusion is that the downvoter isn’t being vindictive. But if, regrettably, the downvoter appears to have a bullying voting pattern, the moderator should private message them “Really, you should stop. Even if there are good reasons for all of your downvotes, you shouldn’t continue just because it looks bad. There are plenty of other people are around who can pick up the slack if you bow out of downvoting.”
If abusive downvoting continues, give a final warning, then ban.
But before you complain to a moderator: Please consider the possibility that your comments are just bad, that someone might disagree with you for legitimate reasons, and that negative feedback is information positive.
It’s not wrong if most of what the user writes is bad. The wrong thing is to act on an incorrect judgement, something that won’t be supported by idealized community. The heuristic you suggest limits influence, which guards against consequences of overconfidence. In some cases, you can see that there is no mistake.
I tend to agree with the first statement as a rule of thumb. If you’re reading and downvoting 8 postings in a day that you think are not worth reading (apparently), it seems like you’re taking it upon yourself to punish that person, whereas I think it is better if we try to read what we consider to be valuable, and if we happen across some writing that seems bad, sure, critique it with a −1 if that seems worthwhile, but don’t go on a jag reading all the bad (by your standards) writing you can find and downvoting it.
Harmony is near the bottom of the list of values I want to see enforced. Probably below oral hygiene.
I invite suggestions for improved rule phrasings which avoid objectionable or controversial words like harmony :-)
I invite suggestions for improved rule phrasings that avoid objectionable or controversial words like harmony :-)
I am not opposed to a moderator having power like what you describe, but I wouldn’t want to be them.