Therefore, what does he matter? Why is this a problem for you?
I don’t see the point in telling people that they shouldn’t have the emotional reactions that they keep having. It may be possible to fade those reactions out in the long haul, but caring about karma is a typical reaction (and it seems to be at least common), then it’s better to take it into account.
The continuing problem of karma downvote stalkers is contributing to the decline of discussion on the site. I definitely feel much less motivated to try and contribute anything now, and I have been told by multiple other people at LessWrong meetings things such as “I used to post a lot on LessWrong, but then I posted X, and got mass downvoted, so now I only comment on Yvain’s blog”.
It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it’s one random internet bozo who whacks your karma.
It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it’s one random internet bozo who whacks your karma.
Boo! Yes, it’s useful to be able to shrug off a downvote bombing, but it’s pushing that grain of truth too far to imply someone’s broken if they can’t. Three reasons.
One: this is, or is supposed to be, a community, and when someone’s part of a community they put some weight on what the rest of the community thinks of them. (This is one of the things distinguishing a community from a mere ad hoc group of strangers.) Advising LWers to write off the opinions of the rest of this community erodes this neighbourly norm.
Two, the Michael Bolton principle: why put the onus on Ander to change when the downvoter’s the one who’s being obnoxious?
Three: this argument proves too much. If I started running around LW insulting and swearing at everyone else here, I’d piss off a lot of people, and it’d be bullet-headed to dismiss their annoyance with “It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others”.
See the quote I referred to, see my comment on it.
Everyone who thinks it’s perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too.
It’s disturbing that so many people think that’s a wonderful way to live around here. Is that what “winning” is, curling up in fetal position because one person in the world doesn’t like you?
Not to me.
One: One bozo indicated his dislike. That is no indication of what the rest of the community thinks of him. Suppose it’s a few. Suppose it’s many. So what? Does everyone in the world have to like you every second of the day for you to function?
Two: Reality puts the onus on everyone to make their own decisions about their own actions. I’ve already expressed that the karma bomber is an asshole. He should knock it off. But what you do in response to an asshole is your choice.
Three: Invalid analogy, leaving out the key point—refraining from doing something they want to do because you’re an asshole.
See the quote I referred to, see my comment on it.
Already did.
Everyone who thinks it’s perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too.
It’s disturbing that so many people think that’s a wonderful way to live around here. Is that what “winning” is, curling up in fetal position because one person in the world doesn’t like you?
Perhaps you should’ve read my comment; if you think that’s responsive to it I can only conclude you’ve got a warped, exaggerated idea of what I wrote.
One: One bozo indicated his dislike. That is no indication of what the rest of the community thinks of him.
It actually is, given that that bozo is themselves part of the community.
Suppose it’s a few. Suppose it’s many. So what?
You see nothing reasonable about being perturbed if “many” people in your community not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike?
Does everyone in the world have to like you every second of the day for you to function?
How is that rhetorical question remotely proportionate or responsive? I nowhere suggested that Ander should require “everyone in the world” to like them “every second of the day” for them “to function”.
Two: Reality puts the onus on everyone to make their own decisions about their own actions.
Yet you felt the need to butt in and ultimately insult Ander & me regardless. Almost as if “Reality” were really just standing in for “buybuydandavis” all along.
Three: Invalid analogy, leaving out the key point—refraining from doing something they want to do because you’re an asshole.
Ignoring the fact that if I’m being enough of an arsehole, that in itself can change “something they want to do” to “something they no longer want to do”.
Let’s take your “Invalid analogy” complaint as given, for argument’s sake, and explicitly suppose that by running around insulting and swearing at people here I’d drive some of them away. (This incorporates what you call “the key point”.) I maintain that it’d be bullet-headed to shrug off people being driven away with “It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others”.
You see nothing reasonable about being perturbed if “many” people in your community not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike?
Many people in a community of hundreds or thousands. To the extent that anyone has noticed you, some like you, and some don’t. This is a fact you should have been able to infer without seeing any karma votes.
Be perturbed if it floats your boat. Nurse and cherish your perturbation. The issue again is failing to do something you want to do because some people have publicly indicated something you should have known in the first place.
It actually is, given that that bozo is themselves part of the community.
See phrase “rest of the community”, and context clearly distinguishing them as distinct from “one bozo”.
Yet you felt the need to butt in and ultimately insult Ander & me
And what statements specifically are you calling an “insult”?
I’m being enough of an arsehole, that in itself can change “something they want to do”
How many hundreds or thousands of people are on this list? If they’re going to stop wanting to talk to all of them because one other guy is an asshole, they are dysfunctional.
Note that we really should have an around here. Ah, if only there was an as well! Technology saves the day again!
Note that we really should have an around here. Ah, if only there was an as well! Technology saves the day again!
Killfiles are shit. The incentive structure they create is all screwed up: not only would they contribute to fragmenting the community into little incestuous clumps of people all vigorously pandering to each other (if someone killfiles you, you don’t have to worry about their votes), but they raise barriers to entry (by making it necessary for new users to killfile every troll and douchebag in the community) and don’t materially discourage trolling (because people need to read your stuff to killfile you, and because hundreds of clicks are a lot more effort than a few sentences of drivel). At best they can function as a patch over an inadequate moderation policy, which at least I’ll confess we’ve historically had.
“Ignore votes” is actually kind of interesting, but it doesn’t solve the problem of people’s privs getting affected by mass downvotes, makes voting a lot less anonymous if it’s reversible, and still creates somewhat ugly incentives. It should never be harder, as a sum of effort, for a forum to correct for the presence of a problem user than it is for that user to create problems.
I don’t think they work too well in a diverse community, either: I used to moderate such a community, on a codebase that introduced killfile features during my tenure, and its only substantial effect on moderation seemed to be cutting down on complaints from long-term users that had well-developed killfiles. (I’ve gone into more detail elsewhere in this thread on its cultural effects.) Since all communities are mostly newer/transient people during the active phase of their lifecycle, this wasn’t much consolation.
That is a much harder administrative problem, though, and I’ve never found a solution that works other than “have a good seed culture, create strong norms against empty rhetoric and generally being a dick, and choose your mods very carefully”. With the LW experience in mind I’m actually kind of a fan of karma as a self-moderation tool, but it introduces some problems of its own (see: Recent Unpleasantness), isn’t anywhere close to a panacea (see: half of Reddit), and doesn’t completely eliminate the need for good people with higher perm levels.
Some people are concerned about Signal/Noise. Filter some people, and poof, signal/noise is improved for you according to your tastes.
Some people liked walled gardens. Great! is your personal wall. Throw everyone you don’t want to over that wall.
not only would they contribute to fragmenting the community into little incestuous clumps of people
You mean, like life, where people associate with the people they like, and don’t associate with those they don’t?
making it necessary for new users to killfile every troll and douchebag in the community
It’s hardly necessary, as it’s impossible to do now. It merely gives you an option to do so.
because people need to read your stuff to killfile you, and because hundreds of clicks are a lot more effort than a few sentences of drivel
What? I read a post, get annoyed, and click, that person drops into my bit bucket never to be seen again. Nothing could possibly be easier.
At best they can function as a patch over an inadequate moderation policy
It’s a personal moderation policy that you control. I would rather have Eugine on the list. From his 9000 karma, I doubt that I’m alone. But I don’t have that option.
It should never be
This is simple a category error. What is the “it” that has a moral duty to “never be”?
for a forum to correct for the presence of a problem user than it is for that user to create problems.
Problem user, according to who? Eugine’s downvoting was a minor problem in the karma system. That’s hardly the only deficiency of it. That’s hardly the only problem around here.
My problem is having a valuable poster banned from the list.
It’s hardly necessary, as it’s impossible to do now. It merely gives you an option to do so.
Options have a habit of becoming mandatory over time as norms adjust to their presence. Make it possible to ignore people and I guarantee that a year later, when the next white supremacist or militant Maoist or Randroid or whatever shows up, you’ll get people saying that it’s not a problem, everyone just needs to ignore them and they’ll never need to see them again. I further guarantee that said white supremacists etc. will respond to this by settling down and carving out hateful little niches for themselves in the forum ecosystem, as the people that care start dropping them into their killfiles and stop downvoting their posts or leaving angry responses or, y’know, actually proving them wrong.
All of which comes to a huge waste of effort, because...
What? I read a post, get annoyed, and click, that person drops into my bit bucket never to be seen again. Nothing could possibly be easier.
...you should now imagine that process being repeated by some large fraction of the two thousand users on this forum, every time a problem (excuse me, controversial) user shows up or creates a new sockpuppet. Doesn’t look so trivial now, does it?
the next white supremacist or militant Maoist or Randroid
Some people want centrally enforced ideological litmus tests, and some don’t.
Doesn’t look so trivial now, does it?
Scales linearly. Click , and they’re gone, for everyone who doesn’t want to see them. Nothing could be simpler. An order of magnitude (or two) less sound and fury than we’ve spent on Eugine.
The recent ban was executed through administrative action. That’s O(1), albeit apparently with a high constant factor if Kaj’s posts are to be trusted. There’s been a lot of drama surrounding it, but that doesn’t have anything to do with scalability.
(Personally, I’d say most of the drama has to do with preexisting cultural and administrative issues that this has dragged squirming into the light, and takes the late unpleasantness as a proximate rather than an ultimate cause, but we may reasonably disagree on that point.)
You see nothing reasonable about being perturbed if “many” people in your community not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike?
Many people in a community of hundreds or thousands. To the extent that anyone has noticed you, some like you, and some don’t. This is a fact you should have been able to infer without seeing any karma votes.
Keep your eye on the ball: I wrote, adding emphasis this time, “not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike”. You, for whatever reason, then skipped over that second part and zoomed in on the mundane fact that some people who post here dislike some other people who post here.
Be perturbed if it floats your boat. Nurse and cherish your perturbation. The issue again is failing to do something you want to do because some people have publicly indicated something you should have known in the first place.
Again I find I have to repeat myself with emphasis: “that in itself [i.e. having people publicly display their contempt for you] can change ‘something they want to do’ to ‘something they no longer want to do’.”
It sounds like the mental model you have of this kind of situation is missing a dimension. The information transmitted when X pointedly & publicly signals their dislike of Y to Y is not simply, “I dislike you”. It’s closer to “I dislike you, and I dislike you to such a degree that I’m willing to express that fact in spite of whatever social friction it causes between me and everyone else, and in spite of whatever time & effort it costs me, because I think it’s totes worth making my dislike of you cognitively salient to you.” It can also be a show of social power.
It actually is, given that that bozo is themselves part of the community.
See phrase “rest of the community”, and context clearly distinguishing them as distinct from “one bozo”.
The context, as I saw it, was that I’d already used the phrase “rest of the community” to refer to everyone on LW apart from Ander, including Eugine_Nier. You used the same phrase when responding to me on that point, so I presumed you were following my usage, and simply indicating a subset of the “rest of the community” with “one bozo”. Evidently I was mistaken on that point; perhaps you weren’t distinguishing the phrases as clearly as you thought?
And what statements specifically are you calling an “insult”?
“It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it’s one random internet bozo who whacks your karma.”
“Everyone who thinks it’s perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too.”
I expect you’ll argue that (1) isn’t actually an insult since it’s denigrating a behaviour rather than a person, and that (2) wasn’t actually directed at me. But a little thought would give the lie to such an argument: (2) doesn’t make much sense as a germane reply to me unless it’s a dig at me for being “dysfunctional”, and the “too” at the end of (2) shows your hand by implying that (1) was actually denigrating a person, not just a behaviour.
How many hundreds or thousands of people are on this list? If they’re going to stop wanting to talk to all of them because one other guy is an asshole, they are dysfunctional.
And with that, the conversation is back where it started. I don’t see the point in completing another circuit, given your sneery hyperbole and such; unless you can pull the quality of your argumentation out of its current nosedive, don’t expect another reply.
I don’t see the point in telling people that they shouldn’t have the emotional reactions that they keep having. It may be possible to fade those reactions out in the long haul, but caring about karma is a typical reaction (and it seems to be at least common), then it’s better to take it into account.
from the OP
It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it’s one random internet bozo who whacks your karma.
Boo! Yes, it’s useful to be able to shrug off a downvote bombing, but it’s pushing that grain of truth too far to imply someone’s broken if they can’t. Three reasons.
One: this is, or is supposed to be, a community, and when someone’s part of a community they put some weight on what the rest of the community thinks of them. (This is one of the things distinguishing a community from a mere ad hoc group of strangers.) Advising LWers to write off the opinions of the rest of this community erodes this neighbourly norm.
Two, the Michael Bolton principle: why put the onus on Ander to change when the downvoter’s the one who’s being obnoxious?
Three: this argument proves too much. If I started running around LW insulting and swearing at everyone else here, I’d piss off a lot of people, and it’d be bullet-headed to dismiss their annoyance with “It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others”.
See the quote I referred to, see my comment on it.
Everyone who thinks it’s perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too.
It’s disturbing that so many people think that’s a wonderful way to live around here. Is that what “winning” is, curling up in fetal position because one person in the world doesn’t like you?
Not to me.
One: One bozo indicated his dislike. That is no indication of what the rest of the community thinks of him. Suppose it’s a few. Suppose it’s many. So what? Does everyone in the world have to like you every second of the day for you to function?
Two: Reality puts the onus on everyone to make their own decisions about their own actions. I’ve already expressed that the karma bomber is an asshole. He should knock it off. But what you do in response to an asshole is your choice.
Three: Invalid analogy, leaving out the key point—refraining from doing something they want to do because you’re an asshole.
Already did.
Perhaps you should’ve read my comment; if you think that’s responsive to it I can only conclude you’ve got a warped, exaggerated idea of what I wrote.
It actually is, given that that bozo is themselves part of the community.
You see nothing reasonable about being perturbed if “many” people in your community not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike?
How is that rhetorical question remotely proportionate or responsive? I nowhere suggested that Ander should require “everyone in the world” to like them “every second of the day” for them “to function”.
Yet you felt the need to butt in and ultimately insult Ander & me regardless. Almost as if “Reality” were really just standing in for “buybuydandavis” all along.
Ignoring the fact that if I’m being enough of an arsehole, that in itself can change “something they want to do” to “something they no longer want to do”.
Let’s take your “Invalid analogy” complaint as given, for argument’s sake, and explicitly suppose that by running around insulting and swearing at people here I’d drive some of them away. (This incorporates what you call “the key point”.) I maintain that it’d be bullet-headed to shrug off people being driven away with “It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others”.
Many people in a community of hundreds or thousands. To the extent that anyone has noticed you, some like you, and some don’t. This is a fact you should have been able to infer without seeing any karma votes.
Be perturbed if it floats your boat. Nurse and cherish your perturbation. The issue again is failing to do something you want to do because some people have publicly indicated something you should have known in the first place.
See phrase “rest of the community”, and context clearly distinguishing them as distinct from “one bozo”.
And what statements specifically are you calling an “insult”?
How many hundreds or thousands of people are on this list? If they’re going to stop wanting to talk to all of them because one other guy is an asshole, they are dysfunctional.
Note that we really should have an around here. Ah, if only there was an as well! Technology saves the day again!
Killfiles are shit. The incentive structure they create is all screwed up: not only would they contribute to fragmenting the community into little incestuous clumps of people all vigorously pandering to each other (if someone killfiles you, you don’t have to worry about their votes), but they raise barriers to entry (by making it necessary for new users to killfile every troll and douchebag in the community) and don’t materially discourage trolling (because people need to read your stuff to killfile you, and because hundreds of clicks are a lot more effort than a few sentences of drivel). At best they can function as a patch over an inadequate moderation policy, which at least I’ll confess we’ve historically had.
“Ignore votes” is actually kind of interesting, but it doesn’t solve the problem of people’s privs getting affected by mass downvotes, makes voting a lot less anonymous if it’s reversible, and still creates somewhat ugly incentives. It should never be harder, as a sum of effort, for a forum to correct for the presence of a problem user than it is for that user to create problems.
Killfiles are not efficient for communities of people who think alike. They are pretty good for collections of radically diverse people.
I understand your point about scaling. But I am also highly suspicious of one-size-fits-all solutions.
I don’t think they work too well in a diverse community, either: I used to moderate such a community, on a codebase that introduced killfile features during my tenure, and its only substantial effect on moderation seemed to be cutting down on complaints from long-term users that had well-developed killfiles. (I’ve gone into more detail elsewhere in this thread on its cultural effects.) Since all communities are mostly newer/transient people during the active phase of their lifecycle, this wasn’t much consolation.
That is a much harder administrative problem, though, and I’ve never found a solution that works other than “have a good seed culture, create strong norms against empty rhetoric and generally being a dick, and choose your mods very carefully”. With the LW experience in mind I’m actually kind of a fan of karma as a self-moderation tool, but it introduces some problems of its own (see: Recent Unpleasantness), isn’t anywhere close to a panacea (see: half of Reddit), and doesn’t completely eliminate the need for good people with higher perm levels.
is awesome.
Some people are concerned about Signal/Noise. Filter some people, and poof, signal/noise is improved for you according to your tastes.
Some people liked walled gardens. Great! is your personal wall. Throw everyone you don’t want to over that wall.
You mean, like life, where people associate with the people they like, and don’t associate with those they don’t?
It’s hardly necessary, as it’s impossible to do now. It merely gives you an option to do so.
What? I read a post, get annoyed, and click, that person drops into my bit bucket never to be seen again. Nothing could possibly be easier.
It’s a personal moderation policy that you control. I would rather have Eugine on the list. From his 9000 karma, I doubt that I’m alone. But I don’t have that option.
This is simple a category error. What is the “it” that has a moral duty to “never be”?
Problem user, according to who? Eugine’s downvoting was a minor problem in the karma system. That’s hardly the only deficiency of it. That’s hardly the only problem around here.
My problem is having a valuable poster banned from the list.
Options have a habit of becoming mandatory over time as norms adjust to their presence. Make it possible to ignore people and I guarantee that a year later, when the next white supremacist or militant Maoist or Randroid or whatever shows up, you’ll get people saying that it’s not a problem, everyone just needs to ignore them and they’ll never need to see them again. I further guarantee that said white supremacists etc. will respond to this by settling down and carving out hateful little niches for themselves in the forum ecosystem, as the people that care start dropping them into their killfiles and stop downvoting their posts or leaving angry responses or, y’know, actually proving them wrong.
All of which comes to a huge waste of effort, because...
...you should now imagine that process being repeated by some large fraction of the two thousand users on this forum, every time a problem (excuse me, controversial) user shows up or creates a new sockpuppet. Doesn’t look so trivial now, does it?
Some people want centrally enforced ideological litmus tests, and some don’t.
Scales linearly. Click , and they’re gone, for everyone who doesn’t want to see them. Nothing could be simpler. An order of magnitude (or two) less sound and fury than we’ve spent on Eugine.
The entire point is that we can and should do a lot better than O(n).
We haven’t. To quote myself:
The recent ban was executed through administrative action. That’s O(1), albeit apparently with a high constant factor if Kaj’s posts are to be trusted. There’s been a lot of drama surrounding it, but that doesn’t have anything to do with scalability.
(Personally, I’d say most of the drama has to do with preexisting cultural and administrative issues that this has dragged squirming into the light, and takes the late unpleasantness as a proximate rather than an ultimate cause, but we may reasonably disagree on that point.)
Keep your eye on the ball: I wrote, adding emphasis this time, “not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike”. You, for whatever reason, then skipped over that second part and zoomed in on the mundane fact that some people who post here dislike some other people who post here.
Again I find I have to repeat myself with emphasis: “that in itself [i.e. having people publicly display their contempt for you] can change ‘something they want to do’ to ‘something they no longer want to do’.”
It sounds like the mental model you have of this kind of situation is missing a dimension. The information transmitted when X pointedly & publicly signals their dislike of Y to Y is not simply, “I dislike you”. It’s closer to “I dislike you, and I dislike you to such a degree that I’m willing to express that fact in spite of whatever social friction it causes between me and everyone else, and in spite of whatever time & effort it costs me, because I think it’s totes worth making my dislike of you cognitively salient to you.” It can also be a show of social power.
The context, as I saw it, was that I’d already used the phrase “rest of the community” to refer to everyone on LW apart from Ander, including Eugine_Nier. You used the same phrase when responding to me on that point, so I presumed you were following my usage, and simply indicating a subset of the “rest of the community” with “one bozo”. Evidently I was mistaken on that point; perhaps you weren’t distinguishing the phrases as clearly as you thought?
“It’s simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it’s one random internet bozo who whacks your karma.”
“Everyone who thinks it’s perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too.”
I expect you’ll argue that (1) isn’t actually an insult since it’s denigrating a behaviour rather than a person, and that (2) wasn’t actually directed at me. But a little thought would give the lie to such an argument: (2) doesn’t make much sense as a germane reply to me unless it’s a dig at me for being “dysfunctional”, and the “too” at the end of (2) shows your hand by implying that (1) was actually denigrating a person, not just a behaviour.
And with that, the conversation is back where it started. I don’t see the point in completing another circuit, given your sneery hyperbole and such; unless you can pull the quality of your argumentation out of its current nosedive, don’t expect another reply.
Whatever. Have a nice life.