I would rather just make spiteful down-voting impossible
That would require presumably automatic distinguishing between “spiteful” and “non-spiteful” :-/
A very simple solution is to follow Reddit and block any kind of voting on old (=”archived”) content.
my impression is that highly specific rules like that are an invitation to gaming the rules.
LOL. Would you like to apply this generally, e.g. as in “The principle of Rule of Law is a bad idea because it’s an invitation to gaming the laws. Much better to have a tyrant...err… benevolent philosopher-king decide matters because it’s harder to game him”.
LOL. Would you like to apply this generally, e.g. as in “The principle of Rule of Law is a bad idea because it’s an invitation to gaming the laws. Much better to have a tyrant...err… benevolent philosopher-king decide matters because it’s harder to game him”.
I favor more of a polycentric legal system. Call on someone agreeable to all parties to solve disputes when they happen on a mostly case-by-case basis with some generally agreed guidelines.
The mono- or polycentricity of the legal system doesn’t have much to do with the Rule of Law, aka how hard the rules are. If the rules are soft and are bent on a regular basis, it doesn’t matter how many people are doing the bending.
That would require presumably automatic distinguishing between “spiteful” and “non-spiteful” :-/
A very simple solution is to follow Reddit and block any kind of voting on old (=”archived”) content.
LOL. Would you like to apply this generally, e.g. as in “The principle of Rule of Law is a bad idea because it’s an invitation to gaming the laws. Much better to have a tyrant...err… benevolent philosopher-king decide matters because it’s harder to game him”.
“Spiteful” was vague. “Mass down-voting” (I assume it to be spiteful) would be better.
How fast does reddit archive content? Given my druthers, I’d permit upvoting on old content—we don’t seem to have a big problem with it being abused.
Reddit archives threads after six months. At that point, you can’t comment or vote, but you can edit and delete your own comments.
That’s still not a technical definition.
I don’t like introducing asymmetries into voting. That “so what is your affirmative answer?” slope is quite slippery.
I favor more of a polycentric legal system. Call on someone agreeable to all parties to solve disputes when they happen on a mostly case-by-case basis with some generally agreed guidelines.
The mono- or polycentricity of the legal system doesn’t have much to do with the Rule of Law, aka how hard the rules are. If the rules are soft and are bent on a regular basis, it doesn’t matter how many people are doing the bending.