Those of you excited about this: aside from the presumed difficulty of implementing it, would it be even better if there were an option to actually vote −0.3 on a post, instead of voting −1 with 30% probability? And would it be even more of an improvement if you could choose to vote anywhere in the [-1, 1] range, so that you could mark something −0.7 or +0.25?
Those suggestions probably seem like an exaggeration, but I really do think we’re all getting too worked up over the minutia of the karma system. This isn’t a game. These numbers aren’t our high scores. It feels like there’s too much temptation to regard them that way, and further complexity to the system will only increase that.
I really do think we’re all getting too worked up over the minutia of the karma system.
Agreed, but:
This isn’t a game.
We must admit that to a great extent, it is. We are all attempting to make ourselves appear more useful to the community, and karma is the only quantitative way to tell if we’re making progress. Like so many things, it feels like it trivializes but it is there for a purpose.
We are all attempting to make ourselves appear more useful to the community
That gets to the heart of why I don’t think the karma system is worth too much emphasis. Shouldn’t we instead be attempting to make ourselves more useful to the community?
Like so many things, it feels like it trivializes but it is there for a purpose.
That’s true. I do think we’re better off with it than we would be without it, but it shouldn’t get attention disproportionate to its purpose. It’s a means to an end, nothing more.
Shouldn’t we instead be attempting to make ourselves more useful to the community?
That’s the thing. Controlling things with ‘shoulds’ is unstable without the presence of real consequences, social or otherwise. Anonymous internet forums do not have these real consequences naturually, which is what gives Karma a purpose. It is a way to allow social control and influence with the minimum of overhead and perceived oppression.
Right. The whole point is that what karma really controls for is appearing useful to the community, not being useful to the community.
I agree that it has a purpose, and that we’re better off with it. I don’t think it’s sufficient on its own, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that obsessing over it is the same as focusing on improving the community. At best, it improves only a small aspect of the community; at worst, the subgoal “think about karma and get points” takes over at the expense of all else.
Those of you excited about this: aside from the presumed difficulty of implementing it, would it be even better if there were an option to actually vote −0.3 on a post, instead of voting −1 with 30% probability? And would it be even more of an improvement if you could choose to vote anywhere in the [-1, 1] range, so that you could mark something −0.7 or +0.25?
Those suggestions probably seem like an exaggeration, but I really do think we’re all getting too worked up over the minutia of the karma system. This isn’t a game. These numbers aren’t our high scores. It feels like there’s too much temptation to regard them that way, and further complexity to the system will only increase that.
Agreed, but:
We must admit that to a great extent, it is. We are all attempting to make ourselves appear more useful to the community, and karma is the only quantitative way to tell if we’re making progress. Like so many things, it feels like it trivializes but it is there for a purpose.
That gets to the heart of why I don’t think the karma system is worth too much emphasis. Shouldn’t we instead be attempting to make ourselves more useful to the community?
That’s true. I do think we’re better off with it than we would be without it, but it shouldn’t get attention disproportionate to its purpose. It’s a means to an end, nothing more.
That’s the thing. Controlling things with ‘shoulds’ is unstable without the presence of real consequences, social or otherwise. Anonymous internet forums do not have these real consequences naturually, which is what gives Karma a purpose. It is a way to allow social control and influence with the minimum of overhead and perceived oppression.
Right. The whole point is that what karma really controls for is appearing useful to the community, not being useful to the community.
I agree that it has a purpose, and that we’re better off with it. I don’t think it’s sufficient on its own, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that obsessing over it is the same as focusing on improving the community. At best, it improves only a small aspect of the community; at worst, the subgoal “think about karma and get points” takes over at the expense of all else.