I am going to publicly call for banning user VoiceOfRa [...] VoiceOfRa almost certainly downvote bombed the user who made the grandparent comment, including downvoting some very uncontroversial and reasonable comments.
Consequentially...why bother even if this is true?
Assuming you are correct, Eugene’s response to being banned (twice!) was to just make another account. It’s highly likely that if you ban this new account, he will make a fourth account. That account will quickly quickly gain karma because, as you note, Eugene’s comments are actually valuable. You are proposing that we do the same thing a third time and expect a different result.
Possible actual solutions that are way too much work:
move LW on to an Omnilibrium like system of voting where Eugene’s votes will put him strongly into the optimate cluster and won’t hurt as much.
My proposed solution would be something like this:
unban the Eugine_Nier account;
completely disable the Azathoth123 and VoiceOfRa account, e.g. replace their passwords with random junk and throw them away so nobody can log into them;
implement a feature whereby you cannot downvote more than X comments (or more than X’ comments by the same author) in a Y-hour period (or need to solve a captcha to do so).
Have an active moderator who will look at suspected cases of mass downvoting in a timely manner (and then punish the downvoter and mod up the victim again)
It is our inability to implement this solution which necessitates all the other ones.
We don’t want to remove the ability to do mass downvoting. If someone posts 100 random Wikipedia articles in the belief that this provides insight, they should be downvoted. What we want to do is remove the ability to do mass downvoting based on the downvoter’s motivation. No automated process can detect motivation, so we can’t do that without using a moderator.
I think you may be using different definitions of “mass downvoting”. I think Jiro means downvoting many of one user’s comments with just one account. I think several people have “mass-downvoted” Clarity this week, but nobody complained.
How about having a limit to what proportion of another user’s downvotes are allowed to come from one user? So if clarity gets downvoted by 20 people there are no limits to how many votes they can get from each of them, but if it is only Nier going on a spree against a new user he pretty soon runs into 5% or whatever the limit is, and then can’t downvote that user any more.
OTOH a formal definition of what qualifies as mass downvoting could prevent bickering about whether a particular instance does. Dunno if the benefits would outweigh the costs, though.
The captcha seems like a terrible solution when we have someone following Penn Jillette’s advice for stage magicians:
Make the secret a lot more trouble than the trick seems worth. You will be fooled by a trick if it involves more time, money and practice than you (or any other sane onlooker) would be willing to invest.
You’re effectively suggesting we put up a fence (to use Moody’s example) in order to show him we disapprove of what he’s doing. He already knows that.
Well, at least a captcha would prevent people from using scripts to downvote each other’s comments, but I don’t think VoiceOfRa is doing that now (though he probably was when going by Eugene Nier). But yes, blocking people altogether from casting too many downvotes would probably make more sense.
I’m not sure about the mathematical details, but as described in their FAQ, they presume that it’s inevitable that people will form into local Blue and Green tribes, so they attempt to cluster the population into Blue and Green to not just be a better recommendation engine to both Blues and Greens, but also calculate a nonpartisan score of upvotes by the other side and downvotes by your side.
In general, I thought this was fascinating because it gets to the heart about what voting is for on social websites. If we’re trying to build a recommendation engine, having an extremely diverse set of viewpoints is probably something that we want in the input stream of links and discussion. However, we then don’t want to have everyone’s voting then represent a single score variable, because people are different and have different worldviews. Mixing everyone’s scores together will make a homogenized mess that doesn’t really speak to anyone.
The idea of tracking partisanship not just to Bayes voting to make better recommendations to users, but to get a sense of nonpartisan quality really impressed me as an idea that’s totally obvious...in retrospect. I do wonder how well it scales, as Omnilibrium is fairly small right now.
Consequentially...why bother even if this is true?
Assuming you are correct, Eugene’s response to being banned (twice!) was to just make another account. It’s highly likely that if you ban this new account, he will make a fourth account. That account will quickly quickly gain karma because, as you note, Eugene’s comments are actually valuable. You are proposing that we do the same thing a third time and expect a different result.
Possible actual solutions that are way too much work:
move LW on to an Omnilibrium like system of voting where Eugene’s votes will put him strongly into the optimate cluster and won’t hurt as much.
give up on moderation democracy on the web.
My proposed solution would be something like this:
unban the Eugine_Nier account;
completely disable the Azathoth123 and VoiceOfRa account, e.g. replace their passwords with random junk and throw them away so nobody can log into them;
implement a feature whereby you cannot downvote more than X comments (or more than X’ comments by the same author) in a Y-hour period (or need to solve a captcha to do so).
My proposed solution would consist entirely of
Have an active moderator who will look at suspected cases of mass downvoting in a timely manner (and then punish the downvoter and mod up the victim again)
It is our inability to implement this solution which necessitates all the other ones.
That would be a poor use of human time. If we don’t want mass downvoting, remove the ability to do it.
We don’t want to remove the ability to do mass downvoting. If someone posts 100 random Wikipedia articles in the belief that this provides insight, they should be downvoted. What we want to do is remove the ability to do mass downvoting based on the downvoter’s motivation. No automated process can detect motivation, so we can’t do that without using a moderator.
Yes, but not necessarily by one person.
I think you may be using different definitions of “mass downvoting”. I think Jiro means downvoting many of one user’s comments with just one account. I think several people have “mass-downvoted” Clarity this week, but nobody complained.
I think someone who makes a huge mistake like posting 100 random Wikipedia articles will be sufficiently downvoted by a number of different people.
This process won’t be blocked by limiting how much individuals can downvote.
How about having a limit to what proportion of another user’s downvotes are allowed to come from one user? So if clarity gets downvoted by 20 people there are no limits to how many votes they can get from each of them, but if it is only Nier going on a spree against a new user he pretty soon runs into 5% or whatever the limit is, and then can’t downvote that user any more.
OTOH a formal definition of what qualifies as mass downvoting could prevent bickering about whether a particular instance does. Dunno if the benefits would outweigh the costs, though.
The captcha seems like a terrible solution when we have someone following Penn Jillette’s advice for stage magicians:
You’re effectively suggesting we put up a fence (to use Moody’s example) in order to show him we disapprove of what he’s doing. He already knows that.
Well, at least a captcha would prevent people from using scripts to downvote each other’s comments, but I don’t think VoiceOfRa is doing that now (though he probably was when going by Eugene Nier). But yes, blocking people altogether from casting too many downvotes would probably make more sense.
How does Omnilibrium voting work?
I’m not sure about the mathematical details, but as described in their FAQ, they presume that it’s inevitable that people will form into local Blue and Green tribes, so they attempt to cluster the population into Blue and Green to not just be a better recommendation engine to both Blues and Greens, but also calculate a nonpartisan score of upvotes by the other side and downvotes by your side.
In general, I thought this was fascinating because it gets to the heart about what voting is for on social websites. If we’re trying to build a recommendation engine, having an extremely diverse set of viewpoints is probably something that we want in the input stream of links and discussion. However, we then don’t want to have everyone’s voting then represent a single score variable, because people are different and have different worldviews. Mixing everyone’s scores together will make a homogenized mess that doesn’t really speak to anyone.
The idea of tracking partisanship not just to Bayes voting to make better recommendations to users, but to get a sense of nonpartisan quality really impressed me as an idea that’s totally obvious...in retrospect. I do wonder how well it scales, as Omnilibrium is fairly small right now.