What’s abusive about it? You’d rather he lose more karma from a mistake that he’s already learned from?
It appears that the original comment was made with the intent of immediately retracting it. “Learning from a mistake” is not a reasonable description of that behavior. But Larks’ solution is not a good idea because two wrongs don’t make a right (in this circumstance).
That said, I agree with you that retraction of a comment that one is surprised is heavily down-voted or otherwise learns later is wrong is a very reasonable reaction.
Maybe I just overvalue karma. But I like the local norm that posts stand or fall on their own merits, not bad things the author has done elsewhere. The original criticism by Vladimir_Nesov was sufficient punishment, and even if it wasn’t, the next obvious intervention (the one you described) just seems excessive to me. Likewise, I think the downvotes you received for raising the question is more negative stimuli than necessary, given evand’s comment.
It appears that the original comment was made with the intent of immediately retracting it. “Learning from a mistake” is not a reasonable description of that behavior. But Larks’ solution is not a good idea because two wrongs don’t make a right (in this circumstance).
That said, I agree with you that retraction of a comment that one is surprised is heavily down-voted or otherwise learns later is wrong is a very reasonable reaction.
What else do you suggest we do when people defect in n-player prisoners’ dilemmas? (Or do you doubt the relevance of the comparison?)
Maybe I just overvalue karma. But I like the local norm that posts stand or fall on their own merits, not bad things the author has done elsewhere. The original criticism by Vladimir_Nesov was sufficient punishment, and even if it wasn’t, the next obvious intervention (the one you described) just seems excessive to me. Likewise, I think the downvotes you received for raising the question is more negative stimuli than necessary, given evand’s comment.