For quick takes, people should be more conservative about downvoting beyond approx. −4. (For context I have been reading all top level quick takes for over a month now)
-5 karma auto collapses the comment
I think most people understands that the magnitude of karma depends quite a bit on how many people saw your post/comment, and having a small negative karma on a quick take already provides most of the feedback vs downvoting to oblivion
AFAICT, LessWrong still officially encourages people to “bring their entire selves”. I don’t think we should be overly harsh on quick takes, especially for newcomers.
Posts on practically any topic are welcomed on LessWrong. I (and others on the team) feel it is important that members are able to “bring their entire selves” to LessWrong and are able to share all their thoughts, ideas, and experiences without fearing whether they are “on topic” for LessWrong. Rationality is not restricted to only specific domains of one’s life and neither should LessWrong be. [...]
Yes, I am saying that your vote should depend on the current karma value, in the limited case of negative karma quick takes. Intuition says it will be a bad thing when generalized to “I will vote in the direction that makes all post/comments have the karma I think it deserves”, but here it should be fine.
Of course, LW still doesn’t have a written voting norm, and my sense of other people’s voting behavior is that there is also no single community-driven voting norm. I hope we can converge on a voting norm, but lacking that here I try to persuade you guys to update slightly on your own voting strategy.
Roko has IMO kind of obviously gone off the rails and this feels to me like a success case of the system. Like, I think it’s more likely than not that we would ban Roko if he kept commenting, just based on past experiences with him.
I agree with some of the general considerations otherwise, but this specific case feels like a success.
Note: I deleted the sentence habryka is replying to.
For quick takes, people should be more conservative about downvoting beyond approx. −4.I have been thinking about this since I saw roko complaining about censorship in their own short form.
I couldn’t form an opinion on that specific quick take, I read it like twice and it still reads a bit like gibberish. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it. It was really just where it started my thinking.
I agree it seems bad for a quick take to immediately collapse if as few as five people downvote, but I do think the downvotes mean something important.
I don’t want to hesitate to downvote a quick take that I think should be downvoted.
Would it make sense to have the auto-collapse happen after 24 hours? Or perhaps a time-discounted thing based on number of votes?
I like the collapse feature in general, and think it’s great for hiding bad comments/not drowning bad comments in downvotes.
I will let the LW mods to think about how to get it done better because having a good implementation seems like the main bottleneck rather than ideas.
In my own ideal world, I think a quick take should be collapsed (perhaps with a better algorithm) in the main page but never collapsed in the person’s quick take page. But the norm still should shift slightly (~10-20%) against downvoting.
I don’t want to hesitate to downvote a quick take that I think should be downvoted.
Valid. I personally do ponder a very slight bit when voting in general because I think good incentives are important.
For quick takes, people should be more conservative about downvoting beyond approx. −4. (For context I have been reading all top level quick takes for over a month now)
-5 karma auto collapses the comment
I think most people understands that the magnitude of karma depends quite a bit on how many people saw your post/comment, and having a small negative karma on a quick take already provides most of the feedback vs downvoting to oblivion
AFAICT, LessWrong still officially encourages people to “bring their entire selves”. I don’t think we should be overly harsh on quick takes, especially for newcomers.
Yes, I am saying that your vote should depend on the current karma value, in the limited case of negative karma quick takes. Intuition says it will be a bad thing when generalized to “I will vote in the direction that makes all post/comments have the karma I think it deserves”, but here it should be fine.
Of course, LW still doesn’t have a written voting norm, and my sense of other people’s voting behavior is that there is also no single community-driven voting norm. I hope we can converge on a voting norm, but lacking that here I try to persuade you guys to update slightly on your own voting strategy.
related discussions:
Do you vote based on what you think total karma should be?
I liked your post, but did not upvote it. I think a fair valuation of that post is 35 karma. (Thread rooted from this comment)
My collection of Karma-dependent voting discussions
I’m finding it quite annoying how ready people are to downvote short-form content.
the point of quick takes is to have discussions about ideas, and just downvoting an idea with no comment is unhelpful
Roko has IMO kind of obviously gone off the rails and this feels to me like a success case of the system. Like, I think it’s more likely than not that we would ban Roko if he kept commenting, just based on past experiences with him.
I agree with some of the general considerations otherwise, but this specific case feels like a success.
Note: I deleted the sentence habryka is replying to.
I couldn’t form an opinion on that specific quick take, I read it like twice and it still reads a bit like gibberish. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned it. It was really just where it started my thinking.
I agree it seems bad for a quick take to immediately collapse if as few as five people downvote, but I do think the downvotes mean something important.
I don’t want to hesitate to downvote a quick take that I think should be downvoted.
Would it make sense to have the auto-collapse happen after 24 hours? Or perhaps a time-discounted thing based on number of votes?
I like the collapse feature in general, and think it’s great for hiding bad comments/not drowning bad comments in downvotes.
I will let the LW mods to think about how to get it done better because having a good implementation seems like the main bottleneck rather than ideas.
In my own ideal world, I think a quick take should be collapsed (perhaps with a better algorithm) in the main page but never collapsed in the person’s quick take page. But the norm still should shift slightly (~10-20%) against downvoting.
Valid. I personally do ponder a very slight bit when voting in general because I think good incentives are important.