(Found a bug in the implementation of the karma penalty: if an ancestor comment goes to −4, responses to any of its descendants will incur the karma penalty. So far, so correct. However, if an ancestor comment goes back from −4 to −3, and is thus eligible for answers without a karma penalty, that change will not propagate down the tree. I.e., I can make this comment, having upvoted the parent from −4 to −3, without a karma penalty. If I replied to Baughn’s +6 comment, however, the outdated karma penalty would still erroneously apply.
Why this comment? Explanation and proof in one: “The answer—by demonstration—would take care of that, too.”)
(Found a bug in the implementation of the karma penalty: if an ancestor comment goes to −4, responses to any of its descendants will incur the karma penalty. So far, so correct. However, if an ancestor comment goes back from −4 to −3, and is thus eligible for answers without a karma penalty, that change will not propagate down the tree. I.e., I can make this comment, having upvoted the parent from −4 to −3, without a karma penalty. If I replied to Baughn’s +6 comment, however, the outdated karma penalty would still erroneously apply.
Why this comment? Explanation and proof in one: “The answer—by demonstration—would take care of that, too.”)