I love the mechanism of having separate karma and agree/disagree voting, but I wonder if it’s failing in this way: if I look at your history, many of your comments have 0 for agree/disagree, which indicates people are just being “lazy” and just voting on karma, not touching the agree/disagree vote at all (I find it doubtful that all your comments are so perfectly balanced around 0 agreement). So you’re possibly getting backsplash from people simply disagreeing with you, but not using the voting mechanism correctly.
I wonder if we could do something like force the user to choose one of [agree, disagree, neutral] before they are allowed to karma vote? In being forced to choose one, even if neutral, it forces the user to recognize and think about the distinction.
(Aside: I think splitting karma and agree/disagree voting on posts (like how comments work) would also be good)
Also, I see most of your comments are actually positive karma. So are you being rate limited based on negative karma on just one or a few comments, rather than your net? This seems somewhat wrong.
But I could also see an argument for wanting to limit someone who has something like 1 out of every 10 comments with negative karma; the hit to discourse norms (assuming karma is working as intended and not stealing votes from agree/disagree), might be worth a rate limit for even a 10% rate.
It’s a pity we don’t know the karma scores of their comments before this post was published. For what it’s worth, I only see two of his comments with negative karma this and this. The first one among these two is the one recent comment of Roko I strong-downvoted (though also strong agree-voted), but I might not have done that if I knew that only a few comments with a few negative karma is enough to silence someone.
(People upvoted Roko’s comments after making this post, so presumably he is no longer being rate-limited. I think there were more negative comments a few hours ago)
I typically use the karma button to express that I think the comment is generally good or generally bad, and the second button when I want to send a more nuanced signal—for example, if I disagree with your opinion, but there is nothing wrong about the fact that you wrote it, that would be “×”.
My opinion is that the “lazy” upvote/downvote system is useful, because the more costly you make it, instead of voting more carefully, most people will simply vote less.
I love the mechanism of having separate karma and agree/disagree voting, but I wonder if it’s failing in this way: if I look at your history, many of your comments have 0 for agree/disagree, which indicates people are just being “lazy” and just voting on karma, not touching the agree/disagree vote at all (I find it doubtful that all your comments are so perfectly balanced around 0 agreement). So you’re possibly getting backsplash from people simply disagreeing with you, but not using the voting mechanism correctly.
I wonder if we could do something like force the user to choose one of [agree, disagree, neutral] before they are allowed to karma vote? In being forced to choose one, even if neutral, it forces the user to recognize and think about the distinction.
(Aside: I think splitting karma and agree/disagree voting on posts (like how comments work) would also be good)
Also, I see most of your comments are actually positive karma. So are you being rate limited based on negative karma on just one or a few comments, rather than your net? This seems somewhat wrong.
But I could also see an argument for wanting to limit someone who has something like 1 out of every 10 comments with negative karma; the hit to discourse norms (assuming karma is working as intended and not stealing votes from agree/disagree), might be worth a rate limit for even a 10% rate.
It’s a pity we don’t know the karma scores of their comments before this post was published. For what it’s worth, I only see two of his comments with negative karma this and this. The first one among these two is the one recent comment of Roko I strong-downvoted (though also strong agree-voted), but I might not have done that if I knew that only a few comments with a few negative karma is enough to silence someone.
(People upvoted Roko’s comments after making this post, so presumably he is no longer being rate-limited. I think there were more negative comments a few hours ago)
On the topic of improving the voting mechanism, I propose that strong votes, up or down, be public, like reactions are.
Sounds reasonable—with greater (voting) power comes greater responsibility.
(And there is always the option to only use the normal votes.)
I typically use the karma button to express that I think the comment is generally good or generally bad, and the second button when I want to send a more nuanced signal—for example, if I disagree with your opinion, but there is nothing wrong about the fact that you wrote it, that would be “×”.
My opinion is that the “lazy” upvote/downvote system is useful, because the more costly you make it, instead of voting more carefully, most people will simply vote less.
I bet even just flipping the order of the buttons would do it.