but you could provide a better explanation for why it never occurred to you that you have a bias during a flamewar.
There’s no further explanation! It really didn’t occur to me that that was a reason to not vote! And it’s still not obvious to me that not-voting is unambiguously the right ethical standard. Of course I agree that it’s unethical to downvote a comment solely because you don’t like the conclusion or you don’t like the commenter—but that remains true whether or not you’re personally involved in the conversation. So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
I don’t know how much of that was you
Not very much. During the recent madness, I had downvoted you I think maybe three or four times, and upvoted you I think once, all of which have now been cancelled.
I accounted for this already.
Sure. Notice that I wrote that a “a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss” (emphasis added) could be legitimate; I didn’t mean to suggest that all of it was.
And so I had to spend far disproportionate time responding to you, compared to your investment in the discussion.
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
The problem with your alternative is that being in an argument alters your judgment of what counts as a good quality post. In additional to the usual “Politics is the mind-killer” truism, remember that we run on corrupted hardware.
You may think that it’s better to go by: “Don’t do X unless, all things considered, it would work for the greater good.” But even if you want to follow that rule, you actually do a better job following it if you just go by “Don’t do X”, as long as X is easily abused and self-serving. That’s the point of the post in the link.
And that’s why I think it just doesn’t work to say, “Oh, I’m modding down this comment because it’s an obectively bad comment, not because I’m in a heated flamewar with them.”
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
See above for why I don’t downvote in arguments I’m currently involved in.
But even setting that policy aside for a minute, you got several upmods, which gave the false impression your post was high quality, when it wasn’t, and used a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly. Changing you from 3 to 2 wouldn’t have done anything; people would still think you had a good point, since they probably didn’t know the entire context that led up to the point about Cosmo.
And since the point about Cosmo was strong, and used to highlight a critical hole in Alicorn’s point, I couldn’t ignore it either.
Now, as long as we’re suggesting ways it could have gone better, how about this: why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about before you get involved? In this case, that would mean presenting the evidence your comparison requires: a case of a male-oriented magazine that uses language that the men here consider beyond the pale in its offensiveness.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example in mind.
Please correct me if I’m misreading you here. You don’t trust yourself to assess whether a comment deserves a downvote, because humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases, and yet somehow you do trust yourself to assess that the other person has no idea of what she’s talking about, even though humans are subject to an arrayofegocentricbiases?
You might want to consider doing this the other way, extending interpretive charity but not karmic charity. In fact, I hereby urge you to vote however you want to on whatever comments you want to. After all, a few undeserved downvotes are of little importance, whereas, say, continuous swipes at other people’s intellectual competence and integrity (e.g., “Yeah, wanna rethink that one?” “This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction,” “I heard you make an all-too-convenient claim about what you were, like, totally about to do,” “Now for the hard part!” “You’re kidding. It never occured to you [...]?” “a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly,” “doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you,” “if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so,” “why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about [...]?” “I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example,” &c.) have a tendency to drag the quality of discourse down. It’s worth keeping in mind that the karma system is supposed to be a mechanism that exists in the service promoting good discussion; discussion does not exist in the service of amassing karma points. I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
If only because the former is much easier to correct. I frequently upvote comments (including ones I disagree with) with negative scores that seem to have no obvious, objective flaws, on the assumption that they were downvoted for disagreement.
The danger here is that someone else might later upvote because they think it’s a good comment, and thus your ‘corrective’ upvote is misplaced (as if you’d come along later you’d never have made it)
There’s no further explanation! It really didn’t occur to me that that was a reason to not vote! And it’s still not obvious to me that not-voting is unambiguously the right ethical standard. Of course I agree that it’s unethical to downvote a comment solely because you don’t like the conclusion or you don’t like the commenter—but that remains true whether or not you’re personally involved in the conversation. So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
Not very much. During the recent madness, I had downvoted you I think maybe three or four times, and upvoted you I think once, all of which have now been cancelled.
Sure. Notice that I wrote that a “a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss” (emphasis added) could be legitimate; I didn’t mean to suggest that all of it was.
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
The problem with your alternative is that being in an argument alters your judgment of what counts as a good quality post. In additional to the usual “Politics is the mind-killer” truism, remember that we run on corrupted hardware.
You may think that it’s better to go by: “Don’t do X unless, all things considered, it would work for the greater good.” But even if you want to follow that rule, you actually do a better job following it if you just go by “Don’t do X”, as long as X is easily abused and self-serving. That’s the point of the post in the link.
And that’s why I think it just doesn’t work to say, “Oh, I’m modding down this comment because it’s an obectively bad comment, not because I’m in a heated flamewar with them.”
See above for why I don’t downvote in arguments I’m currently involved in.
But even setting that policy aside for a minute, you got several upmods, which gave the false impression your post was high quality, when it wasn’t, and used a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly. Changing you from 3 to 2 wouldn’t have done anything; people would still think you had a good point, since they probably didn’t know the entire context that led up to the point about Cosmo.
And since the point about Cosmo was strong, and used to highlight a critical hole in Alicorn’s point, I couldn’t ignore it either.
Now, as long as we’re suggesting ways it could have gone better, how about this: why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about before you get involved? In this case, that would mean presenting the evidence your comparison requires: a case of a male-oriented magazine that uses language that the men here consider beyond the pale in its offensiveness.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example in mind.
I have replied in the other thread.
Please correct me if I’m misreading you here. You don’t trust yourself to assess whether a comment deserves a downvote, because humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases, and yet somehow you do trust yourself to assess that the other person has no idea of what she’s talking about, even though humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases?
You might want to consider doing this the other way, extending interpretive charity but not karmic charity. In fact, I hereby urge you to vote however you want to on whatever comments you want to. After all, a few undeserved downvotes are of little importance, whereas, say, continuous swipes at other people’s intellectual competence and integrity (e.g., “Yeah, wanna rethink that one?” “This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction,” “I heard you make an all-too-convenient claim about what you were, like, totally about to do,” “Now for the hard part!” “You’re kidding. It never occured to you [...]?” “a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly,” “doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you,” “if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so,” “why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about [...]?” “I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example,” &c.) have a tendency to drag the quality of discourse down. It’s worth keeping in mind that the karma system is supposed to be a mechanism that exists in the service promoting good discussion; discussion does not exist in the service of amassing karma points. I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
If only because the former is much easier to correct. I frequently upvote comments (including ones I disagree with) with negative scores that seem to have no obvious, objective flaws, on the assumption that they were downvoted for disagreement.
The danger here is that someone else might later upvote because they think it’s a good comment, and thus your ‘corrective’ upvote is misplaced (as if you’d come along later you’d never have made it)
I’ve actually removed upvotes for precisely that reason, when I’ve noticed it happen.