Oh, I certainly don’t think that the average hard scientist’s view and knowledge of humanities are much better. However, when you order academic fields by rigor and exactness, with pure mathematics on one end and humanities on the other, then as a very general rule, in order to avoid writing nonsense in your own field, you must not have misconceptions about fields that are more exact than yours, whereas knowledge of less exact fields is normally not important for scholarly work.
Thus, for example, a physicist can be completely ignorant about philosophy and humanities and nevertheless consistently produce top-quality physics, whereas a philosopher or a cultural critic who is completely ignorant of natural sciences will inevitably end up writing nonsense at least occasionally. So while both of them may have an equally distorted and ignorant view of each other’s field, the latter’s work will likely suffer far more as a consequence.
Regarding the Sokal affair, I agree that it’s usually overblown far beyond its real significance (and physicists should also be more humble in light of the more recent Bogdanoff affair). However, I think your minimization of it is also exaggerated. Regardless of whether a journal is peer-reviewed, editors should be held responsible for what they decide to publish. I don’t think the editors of Social Text would have been so eager to publish Sokal’s essay if it hadn’t pandered so consistently to their ideology.
Well, I’m not entirely convinced the phrase “order academic fields by rigor and exactness” is a completely meaningful one. It implies a level of direct comparability that I’m not confident exists. I certainly agree that humanities makes for very bad science, but then, so does basket weaving. The flip side is that science has not developed a particularly useful vocabulary for dealing with nuance, ambiguity, or irony.
I’m also not sure a philosopher/cultural critic without significant scientific training is bound to write nonsense, so long as they actually stick to their field of expertise. Now, it may well be true that humanities sorts are more prone to straying from their actual areas of expertise—certainly a study demonstrating that would not surprise me. But I think that one can write for a very, very long time about sexual politics in Victorian literature without ever running into a situation where lack of knowledge of science beyond a high school level is going to be a problem. It’s certainly difficult to imagine it resulting in nonsense production that goes beyond a stray sentence here or there.
And yes, the Sokal Affair clearly reflects badly on the editors of Social Text. But that’s why I compared it to getting nonsense published in a newspaper—which has been proven possible from the local level up to major international papers. I also would not describe Social Text as “eager” to publish Sokal’s essay. They rejected it initially, and only dusted it off because it was directly relevant to a special issue they were publishing and, probably more importantly for a paper journal, it was very short. But more to the point, Social Text is not a scholarly journal. I wasn’t in the field at the time of the Sokal Affair, so any sense I have of its reputation is second hand, but if an un-peer reviewed journal was being treated as equivalent to PMLA or Critical Inquiry or something, that, much more than the Sokal Affair, is damning evidence against the humanities.
I should note that I am also more hostile towards Sokal for his completely and irredeemably awful book Fashionable Nonsense than I am for the Sokal Affair. He, at least, does not overstate the significance of his own hoax. Whereas Fashionable Nonsense is a sufficiently wretched book that I would generally advise people that their time would be better spent reading up on the intricacies of crystal energy healing.
But I think that one can write for a very, very long time about sexual politics in Victorian literature without ever running into a situation where lack of knowledge of science beyond a high school level is going to be a problem. It’s certainly difficult to imagine it resulting in nonsense production that goes beyond a stray sentence here or there.
I strongly disagree here. To write meaningfully about sexual politics, you must have a model of sexual and other related aspects of human thought and behavior, and modern science has a whole lot to say about that. (Of course, the relevant science is still very incomplete and far from settled, but that makes it even more important to be knowledgeable about it, in order to separate solid insight from speculation.) If you lack that knowledge, your model is likely to be wrong in at least some ways that could be corrected by familiarizing yourself with the relevant science, and this is likely to show in your writing. Moreover, there is a whole lot of spurious pseudo-insight in this area (Freudianism and its offshoots being the most notorious example), and if you’re not familiar with science beyond a high school level, you may well end up swallowing a lot of such nonsense believing it to be solid insight and incorporating it into your work.
I would agree if one is writing about Victorian sexual politics straight-up, however I was careful to specify the sexual politics of Victorian literature. For which Freudianism, notoriously wrong as it is, is highly relevant because it was enormously popular for a chunk of the time period, and did directly influence writers (more particularly in the early 20th century than the late 19th, but still). Certainly it had much more influence than post-Victorian science that the authors could not possibly have been aware of.
Which seems to me one of the hedges that postmodernism usefully offers. The decision to approach Victorian literary sexual politics in terms of the thinking of the time and to treat it as a phenomenon of that culture is, to my mind, quintessentially postmodernist.
I see a −1 karma on the parent post as of this writing. That seems to me a completely irresponsible use of karma points. I propose the following fix for such phenomena: if you downvote a comment, your own karma drops by two. This will bring assignment of karma more into line with real world enforcement of social rules, in which the self-appointed police wields his punishments carefully and reluctantly because of the cost to himself. Someone who is overly censorious in the real world loses social capital, and I think that is a very good thing.
Downvoting is already limited by social capital (how many times you can downvote is a fucntion of your own karma score). Causing it to also decrease one’s karma would discourage downvoting outright instead of merely limiting it, and that is an unwanted thing.
Well, I don’t think we can say a priori that my proposal would not work. I think it might, because I think it reflects what happens in the real world enforcement of social rules. The enforcer puts himself on the line in the real world. You want the would be police to pay a certain price.
But I’m glad that, as you mention, there seems to be some sort of limit. I suspect it’s not enough.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden (comments from users with net-negative karma are throttled, but not hidden); even then the comment is just hidden, not removed, and there’s a clear marker that the comment exists. Further, individual users can turn off the option of having downvoted comments hidden—I have, and if I remember correctly I’ve seen others mention that they’ve done so as well. Individuals’ overall karma scores are not especially visible and don’t affect very much, especially when one has more than 100-200 karma or so and is not especially at risk of going under the cutoff for posting to the main area of the site.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Does this happen? I think my behaviour is actually the opposite, I sometimes upvote comments that I think have been downvoted unfairly even though I probably wouldn’t consider them worth an upvote otherwise.
It would be startling if conformity bias didn’t operate here, and I don’t see much evidence that it doesn’t.
That said, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. I often upvote after (IMO) unearned downvotes, and sometimes downvote after unearned upvotes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not subject to the bandwagon effect.
The bandwagon effect is real, I think. My own behavior is to pay particular attention to heavily upvoted or downvoted comments to see if I can see the reason for the excitement. If I can’t find a reason, I will often vote the opposite way, as you do. But I usually find the reason. And then I can’t resist adding my voice to the crowd’s.
And since the upvoting and downvoting is silent and anonymous, the reasons for it should and I think do(#) tend to resemble the reasons of democratic voting, which reasons were discussed in Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter—the point of the book being that the reasons tend to be irrational. The result is a phenomenon that is overall irrational, with occasional exceptions.
Granted, it might not be much of an improvement if voters had to add an explanation, since humans are nothing if not fantastic rationalizers.
(#) I say I think, because since the voting is silent and anonymous, no one but the voters can actually know, so anyone else is forced to come up with a hypothesis which fits the voting pattern.
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
I’m fairly sure that that’s not the same thing as censorship.
(Or does ‘censorious’ refer to censure, rather than censorship? I probably should have looked that up before I used it, rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...)
I couldn’t help but notice that you wanted to share blame with me:
rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...
Do you mean that seriously? Do you want to have a discussion about what the topic was and whether I stayed on it? I’m not really inclined to, but here you’ve blamed something on me.
Your very first comment in this thread started with “while I’m on the topic of karma”. Since it was your fist comment in this thread, I assumed that that bit referred to the conversation you’d been having elsewhere, minutes before, which included themes of karma and censorship.
As I implied, that’s not an assumption that I should have made, though I think it’s somewhat understandable that I did. (What did you mean by that phrase?)
I meant I’m on the topic of karma. And I was on the topic of karma. Of karma—not of karma and hacker news, or karma and deleting comments, or karma and censorship. But of karma.
In my experience, “while I’m on the topic of X” means “I’m going to continue talking about X, but in a slightly different way” or “I’m changing the topic to a different subtopic of X than the one I was just discussing” or “I’m changing the topic to something that’s vaguely related to topic-at-hand X”. In any case, it refers to a continuation of talking-about-X, which means that it’s not completely beyond the pale to assume that various other concepts that have been used are still part of the conversation.
This appears to be turning into a pissing contest. I’m not interested in playing apey games with you.
I wasn’t challenging you to a pissing contest, I was defending myself against an attempt to deflect blame onto me. If you didn’t want me to defend myself, you probably should not have tried to use me as a convenient person to deflect blame from yourself. The problem was that you didn’t know what a word meant. That’s not my fault.
The comments are hidden in the original post’s comments section, yes—but they’re not hidden on our user pages, or on the recent comments page, and the latter is a major component of how many of the more active users keep track of conversations. (It’s where I’m typing this very reply!) They also increment the “(N children)” note for the hidden-comment marker, which I expect makes people more likely to click and see what’s being discussed.
Ironically enough, the conversation is also long enough that even with the option to have downvoted comments hidden turned off, one has to click on a link to “continue this thread »”. This takes exactly as much effort as clicking on a link to unhide a comment, and the interface doesn’t even encourage the user to do so by letting them know that there are a significant number of comments left to read. Is this also censorship?
What? What’s your context for asking me that rhetorical question? My problem in this thread was with a good, solid comment that made a good point (written by Vladimir M) getting downvoted. I didn’t say he was censored. I simply pointed out that he got a downvote for a bad reason and I suggested a possible fix.
Elsewhere I mentioned that in hacker news I had been permanently frozen out because of my first comment being downvoted. But that was to answer folks who were criticizing my decision to delete my own comment. I explained the history of my concern.
I’m not sure how your question applies to any of this.
Someone who is overly censorious in the real world loses social capital, and I think that is a very good thing.
Someone who is insufficiently censorious also loses social capital, in almost all societies throughout history. The notion that it is best to be maximally nonjudgmental is a recent idea which is not particularly prevalent outside the urban West. And not a particularly good idea either.
As regards the received view within this community on use of downvoting to express disapproval, you’d better read this.
As far as I know, no one can keep track … which fact pretty much destroys my implicit argument regarding a socially enforced duty to be an enforcer. At least as it applies to downvoting. Thx for bringing me back to reality.
The notion that it is best to be maximally nonjudgmental is a recent idea
I am not in any way shape or form pushing this idea. It is a straw man. What I suggested was an adjustment to the current system which brings it more into line with how the real world works. The real world is not pacifist. It is not nonjudgmental. And those who enforce good behavior pay a price, because freedom is not free. That is what I am using as a model, and not a maximally nonjudgmental system.
The real world is ruled by economics, by every action having a certain cost. It is the cost of action which causes us to choose wisely what we do. I am suggesting tweaking the economics of karma, because I think it could stand to be improved.
The real world is ruled by economics, by every action having a certain cost.
Yes, all actions have a cost (though, of course, not necessarily a net cost). But your suggested fix—penalizing a downvoter two whole karma points—attaches no corresponding penalty to upvoting. Why not?
If you had suggested something more balanced that penalized both up- and down-votes, then I might not have jumped in to chide you for ‘pacifism’. And if your proposal had also made upvoting and downvoting of top-level articles particularly expensive, then I might have supported you.
One way of you to have responded without leveling false accusations would have been to say something like, “let’s not forget the other side, upvoting.” Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have been receptive to it. I would have been very receptive, I am very receptive. But instead of putting it that way, you decided to take an oppositional posture which presupposes, falsely, that I would have been resistant to the point. You manufactured a conflict where there had been none.
To answer your question:
But your suggested fix—penalizing a downvoter two whole karma points—attaches no corresponding penalty to upvoting. Why not?
let me rephrase it:
Why didn’t you think of everything?
I think the answer is obvious.
So, let’s turn to upvoting. One solution for upvoting is to end it. Make it just downvoting. If the purpose of moderation is to protect the community from trolls, then all you need is the downvote.
Does karma even matter once you have enough to not get silenced instantly? It is more a measure of experience with the site than intelligence. I cannot think of a short series of comments i could make that would drain all of my karma at this point, which would not get me banned even if I had several thousand.
I think that karma could potentially be more useful as an assessment of the quality of a post if it were assigned more judiciously than it is currently on just about any karma based site. It might be possible to refine the karma system to improve it. It does not seem to me that the possibilities have really been explored. Currently, karma tends to enforce groupthink on most sites. On digg and reddit, I see massive groupthink. Both sites have become useless to me—they’ve become a mix of self congratulation, juvenile humor, and predictable politics. I remember when they found interesting stuff on the web.
Oh, I certainly don’t think that the average hard scientist’s view and knowledge of humanities are much better. However, when you order academic fields by rigor and exactness, with pure mathematics on one end and humanities on the other, then as a very general rule, in order to avoid writing nonsense in your own field, you must not have misconceptions about fields that are more exact than yours, whereas knowledge of less exact fields is normally not important for scholarly work.
Thus, for example, a physicist can be completely ignorant about philosophy and humanities and nevertheless consistently produce top-quality physics, whereas a philosopher or a cultural critic who is completely ignorant of natural sciences will inevitably end up writing nonsense at least occasionally. So while both of them may have an equally distorted and ignorant view of each other’s field, the latter’s work will likely suffer far more as a consequence.
Regarding the Sokal affair, I agree that it’s usually overblown far beyond its real significance (and physicists should also be more humble in light of the more recent Bogdanoff affair). However, I think your minimization of it is also exaggerated. Regardless of whether a journal is peer-reviewed, editors should be held responsible for what they decide to publish. I don’t think the editors of Social Text would have been so eager to publish Sokal’s essay if it hadn’t pandered so consistently to their ideology.
Well, I’m not entirely convinced the phrase “order academic fields by rigor and exactness” is a completely meaningful one. It implies a level of direct comparability that I’m not confident exists. I certainly agree that humanities makes for very bad science, but then, so does basket weaving. The flip side is that science has not developed a particularly useful vocabulary for dealing with nuance, ambiguity, or irony.
I’m also not sure a philosopher/cultural critic without significant scientific training is bound to write nonsense, so long as they actually stick to their field of expertise. Now, it may well be true that humanities sorts are more prone to straying from their actual areas of expertise—certainly a study demonstrating that would not surprise me. But I think that one can write for a very, very long time about sexual politics in Victorian literature without ever running into a situation where lack of knowledge of science beyond a high school level is going to be a problem. It’s certainly difficult to imagine it resulting in nonsense production that goes beyond a stray sentence here or there.
And yes, the Sokal Affair clearly reflects badly on the editors of Social Text. But that’s why I compared it to getting nonsense published in a newspaper—which has been proven possible from the local level up to major international papers. I also would not describe Social Text as “eager” to publish Sokal’s essay. They rejected it initially, and only dusted it off because it was directly relevant to a special issue they were publishing and, probably more importantly for a paper journal, it was very short. But more to the point, Social Text is not a scholarly journal. I wasn’t in the field at the time of the Sokal Affair, so any sense I have of its reputation is second hand, but if an un-peer reviewed journal was being treated as equivalent to PMLA or Critical Inquiry or something, that, much more than the Sokal Affair, is damning evidence against the humanities.
I should note that I am also more hostile towards Sokal for his completely and irredeemably awful book Fashionable Nonsense than I am for the Sokal Affair. He, at least, does not overstate the significance of his own hoax. Whereas Fashionable Nonsense is a sufficiently wretched book that I would generally advise people that their time would be better spent reading up on the intricacies of crystal energy healing.
I strongly disagree here. To write meaningfully about sexual politics, you must have a model of sexual and other related aspects of human thought and behavior, and modern science has a whole lot to say about that. (Of course, the relevant science is still very incomplete and far from settled, but that makes it even more important to be knowledgeable about it, in order to separate solid insight from speculation.) If you lack that knowledge, your model is likely to be wrong in at least some ways that could be corrected by familiarizing yourself with the relevant science, and this is likely to show in your writing. Moreover, there is a whole lot of spurious pseudo-insight in this area (Freudianism and its offshoots being the most notorious example), and if you’re not familiar with science beyond a high school level, you may well end up swallowing a lot of such nonsense believing it to be solid insight and incorporating it into your work.
I would agree if one is writing about Victorian sexual politics straight-up, however I was careful to specify the sexual politics of Victorian literature. For which Freudianism, notoriously wrong as it is, is highly relevant because it was enormously popular for a chunk of the time period, and did directly influence writers (more particularly in the early 20th century than the late 19th, but still). Certainly it had much more influence than post-Victorian science that the authors could not possibly have been aware of.
Which seems to me one of the hedges that postmodernism usefully offers. The decision to approach Victorian literary sexual politics in terms of the thinking of the time and to treat it as a phenomenon of that culture is, to my mind, quintessentially postmodernist.
While I’m on the topic of karma.
I see a −1 karma on the parent post as of this writing. That seems to me a completely irresponsible use of karma points. I propose the following fix for such phenomena: if you downvote a comment, your own karma drops by two. This will bring assignment of karma more into line with real world enforcement of social rules, in which the self-appointed police wields his punishments carefully and reluctantly because of the cost to himself. Someone who is overly censorious in the real world loses social capital, and I think that is a very good thing.
Downvoting is already limited by social capital (how many times you can downvote is a fucntion of your own karma score). Causing it to also decrease one’s karma would discourage downvoting outright instead of merely limiting it, and that is an unwanted thing.
Well, I don’t think we can say a priori that my proposal would not work. I think it might, because I think it reflects what happens in the real world enforcement of social rules. The enforcer puts himself on the line in the real world. You want the would be police to pay a certain price.
But I’m glad that, as you mention, there seems to be some sort of limit. I suspect it’s not enough.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden (comments from users with net-negative karma are throttled, but not hidden); even then the comment is just hidden, not removed, and there’s a clear marker that the comment exists. Further, individual users can turn off the option of having downvoted comments hidden—I have, and if I remember correctly I’ve seen others mention that they’ve done so as well. Individuals’ overall karma scores are not especially visible and don’t affect very much, especially when one has more than 100-200 karma or so and is not especially at risk of going under the cutoff for posting to the main area of the site.
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
Does this happen? I think my behaviour is actually the opposite, I sometimes upvote comments that I think have been downvoted unfairly even though I probably wouldn’t consider them worth an upvote otherwise.
It would be startling if conformity bias didn’t operate here, and I don’t see much evidence that it doesn’t.
That said, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. I often upvote after (IMO) unearned downvotes, and sometimes downvote after unearned upvotes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not subject to the bandwagon effect.
The bandwagon effect is real, I think. My own behavior is to pay particular attention to heavily upvoted or downvoted comments to see if I can see the reason for the excitement. If I can’t find a reason, I will often vote the opposite way, as you do. But I usually find the reason. And then I can’t resist adding my voice to the crowd’s.
And since the upvoting and downvoting is silent and anonymous, the reasons for it should and I think do(#) tend to resemble the reasons of democratic voting, which reasons were discussed in Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter—the point of the book being that the reasons tend to be irrational. The result is a phenomenon that is overall irrational, with occasional exceptions.
Granted, it might not be much of an improvement if voters had to add an explanation, since humans are nothing if not fantastic rationalizers.
(#) I say I think, because since the voting is silent and anonymous, no one but the voters can actually know, so anyone else is forced to come up with a hypothesis which fits the voting pattern.
I’m fairly sure that that’s not the same thing as censorship.
(Or does ‘censorious’ refer to censure, rather than censorship? I probably should have looked that up before I used it, rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...)
Censorious means harshly critical, disapproving.
Oops.
I couldn’t help but notice that you wanted to share blame with me:
Do you mean that seriously? Do you want to have a discussion about what the topic was and whether I stayed on it? I’m not really inclined to, but here you’ve blamed something on me.
Your very first comment in this thread started with “while I’m on the topic of karma”. Since it was your fist comment in this thread, I assumed that that bit referred to the conversation you’d been having elsewhere, minutes before, which included themes of karma and censorship.
As I implied, that’s not an assumption that I should have made, though I think it’s somewhat understandable that I did. (What did you mean by that phrase?)
I meant I’m on the topic of karma. And I was on the topic of karma. Of karma—not of karma and hacker news, or karma and deleting comments, or karma and censorship. But of karma.
In my experience, “while I’m on the topic of X” means “I’m going to continue talking about X, but in a slightly different way” or “I’m changing the topic to a different subtopic of X than the one I was just discussing” or “I’m changing the topic to something that’s vaguely related to topic-at-hand X”. In any case, it refers to a continuation of talking-about-X, which means that it’s not completely beyond the pale to assume that various other concepts that have been used are still part of the conversation.
This appears to be turning into a pissing contest. I’m not interested in playing apey games with you.
I wasn’t challenging you to a pissing contest, I was defending myself against an attempt to deflect blame onto me. If you didn’t want me to defend myself, you probably should not have tried to use me as a convenient person to deflect blame from yourself. The problem was that you didn’t know what a word meant. That’s not my fault.
This very thread on karma is now hidden, including your own comment, because my comment upthread reached −3.
The comments are hidden in the original post’s comments section, yes—but they’re not hidden on our user pages, or on the recent comments page, and the latter is a major component of how many of the more active users keep track of conversations. (It’s where I’m typing this very reply!) They also increment the “(N children)” note for the hidden-comment marker, which I expect makes people more likely to click and see what’s being discussed.
Ironically enough, the conversation is also long enough that even with the option to have downvoted comments hidden turned off, one has to click on a link to “continue this thread »”. This takes exactly as much effort as clicking on a link to unhide a comment, and the interface doesn’t even encourage the user to do so by letting them know that there are a significant number of comments left to read. Is this also censorship?
What? What’s your context for asking me that rhetorical question? My problem in this thread was with a good, solid comment that made a good point (written by Vladimir M) getting downvoted. I didn’t say he was censored. I simply pointed out that he got a downvote for a bad reason and I suggested a possible fix.
Elsewhere I mentioned that in hacker news I had been permanently frozen out because of my first comment being downvoted. But that was to answer folks who were criticizing my decision to delete my own comment. I explained the history of my concern.
I’m not sure how your question applies to any of this.
Someone who is insufficiently censorious also loses social capital, in almost all societies throughout history. The notion that it is best to be maximally nonjudgmental is a recent idea which is not particularly prevalent outside the urban West. And not a particularly good idea either.
As regards the received view within this community on use of downvoting to express disapproval, you’d better read this.
Does anyone keep track of whether other people downvote?
As far as I know, no one can keep track … which fact pretty much destroys my implicit argument regarding a socially enforced duty to be an enforcer. At least as it applies to downvoting. Thx for bringing me back to reality.
I am not in any way shape or form pushing this idea. It is a straw man. What I suggested was an adjustment to the current system which brings it more into line with how the real world works. The real world is not pacifist. It is not nonjudgmental. And those who enforce good behavior pay a price, because freedom is not free. That is what I am using as a model, and not a maximally nonjudgmental system.
The real world is ruled by economics, by every action having a certain cost. It is the cost of action which causes us to choose wisely what we do. I am suggesting tweaking the economics of karma, because I think it could stand to be improved.
Yes, all actions have a cost (though, of course, not necessarily a net cost). But your suggested fix—penalizing a downvoter two whole karma points—attaches no corresponding penalty to upvoting. Why not?
If you had suggested something more balanced that penalized both up- and down-votes, then I might not have jumped in to chide you for ‘pacifism’. And if your proposal had also made upvoting and downvoting of top-level articles particularly expensive, then I might have supported you.
One way of you to have responded without leveling false accusations would have been to say something like, “let’s not forget the other side, upvoting.” Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have been receptive to it. I would have been very receptive, I am very receptive. But instead of putting it that way, you decided to take an oppositional posture which presupposes, falsely, that I would have been resistant to the point. You manufactured a conflict where there had been none.
To answer your question:
let me rephrase it:
I think the answer is obvious.
So, let’s turn to upvoting. One solution for upvoting is to end it. Make it just downvoting. If the purpose of moderation is to protect the community from trolls, then all you need is the downvote.
Does karma even matter once you have enough to not get silenced instantly? It is more a measure of experience with the site than intelligence. I cannot think of a short series of comments i could make that would drain all of my karma at this point, which would not get me banned even if I had several thousand.
I think that karma could potentially be more useful as an assessment of the quality of a post if it were assigned more judiciously than it is currently on just about any karma based site. It might be possible to refine the karma system to improve it. It does not seem to me that the possibilities have really been explored. Currently, karma tends to enforce groupthink on most sites. On digg and reddit, I see massive groupthink. Both sites have become useless to me—they’ve become a mix of self congratulation, juvenile humor, and predictable politics. I remember when they found interesting stuff on the web.