(Upvoted so someone can explain it without Karma cost.)
Downvoted because feeding Will when he is speaking this kind of pretentious drivel is precisely the kind of thing that the cost is intended to penalize. It is an example of the system working as it should!
(Note that my own earlier reply would be penalized if I made it now and that too would be a desirable outcome. If I was confident that Will’s claim about the Sermon on the Mount would be dismissed and downvoted as it has been then I would not have made a response.)
It is an example of the system working as it should!
Really, it’s an example of the system backfiring,causing someone to upvote a comment that deserved a downvoting it would probably otherwise have received.
What probability do you assign to someone with total karma less than 5 coming and translating this specific Will_Newsome’s comment into intelligible speach? My estimate is: epsilon.
Breaking a rule, and explaining that it has to be done to provide an opportunity for something with epsilon probability and a very low value even if it happened… that’s just an example of a person deliberately breaking a rule, and signalling dissatisfaction with the rule.
People respond to incentives. Especially loss-related incentives. I do not give homeless people nickels even though I can afford to give a nearly arbitrary number of homeless people nickels. The set of people with karma less than five will be outright unable to reply—the set of people with karma greater than five will just be disincentivized, and that’s still something.
The prior probability of someone being able to explain negative-value Will_Newsome’s comments in a way that provides value for LW readers is already epsilon. Even without the disincentives.
I think that people less responding to intentionally meaningless comments is a good thing. Therefore, trivial disincentives for doing this are a good thing. Therefore, removing them in this specific situation is a bad thing.
Downvoted because feeding Will when he is speaking this kind of pretentious drivel is precisely the kind of thing that the cost is intended to penalize. It is an example of the system working as it should!
(Note that my own earlier reply would be penalized if I made it now and that too would be a desirable outcome. If I was confident that Will’s claim about the Sermon on the Mount would be dismissed and downvoted as it has been then I would not have made a response.)
Really, it’s an example of the system backfiring,causing someone to upvote a comment that deserved a downvoting it would probably otherwise have received.
That was my point.
What probability do you assign to someone with total karma less than 5 coming and translating this specific Will_Newsome’s comment into intelligible speach? My estimate is: epsilon.
Breaking a rule, and explaining that it has to be done to provide an opportunity for something with epsilon probability and a very low value even if it happened… that’s just an example of a person deliberately breaking a rule, and signalling dissatisfaction with the rule.
People respond to incentives. Especially loss-related incentives. I do not give homeless people nickels even though I can afford to give a nearly arbitrary number of homeless people nickels. The set of people with karma less than five will be outright unable to reply—the set of people with karma greater than five will just be disincentivized, and that’s still something.
The prior probability of someone being able to explain negative-value Will_Newsome’s comments in a way that provides value for LW readers is already epsilon. Even without the disincentives.
I think that people less responding to intentionally meaningless comments is a good thing. Therefore, trivial disincentives for doing this are a good thing. Therefore, removing them in this specific situation is a bad thing.