Since you mention it, I’ve noticed the suspicious phenomenon of PhilGoetz’s top-level posts getting modded down harshly and then, without supporting posts showing up, they come back into positive territory. Exactly what’s happening here.
This is an unusual pattern to consistently happen—I hope no one is acting as a “plunge protection team” for anyone :-/
This is happening to almost every post. Mine are displaying the same behavior. My last two posts are at +6, +8 but the impression I got from the comments was almost entirely negative.
That looks like a different phenomenon: in this one, you drew out interesting comments (which you noted in an addendum), and so people may have been modding that up. And I think that one only went down to −1, and the other one never went into negative territory.
(Though yes, to be brutally honest, it does bother me that the new karma system gives someone 90 points for this, but 12 points for this. )
In the case of PhilGoetz’s posts, I’ve seen at least two others go down to something like −4, and then, long after people have moved on, it goes positive. Hmmm...
(Though yes, to be brutally honest, it does bother me that the new karma system gives someone 90 points for this, but 12 points for this.)
Your example is valid, and you added the disclaimer of brutal honesty, but I had an instinctive negative reaction to the fact that you used your own comment as the prime example of karma injustice. (Ev-psych story: holding oneself up as the victim of injustice might get a person what they want, but it often comes off as a strong signal of low status.)
As a point of style, this would be something to avoid where possible.
ETA: This… looks harsher than I intended. I was hoping to give advice about an aspect of navigating this kind of social world, not to attack the quality of the comment above. Maybe I need to eat dinner before commenting again.
(Ev-psych story: holding oneself up as the victim of injustice might get a person what they want, but it often comes off as a strong signal of low status.)
It can, but there is a line in there between ‘victim of injustice’ and ‘someone who has the social resources to get away with demanding more status by claiming offence’. It comes down to how good you are at framing situations and how scared other people are of rejecting or ignoring your claim.
I agree with your general point, but look at the specifics of this case. MrHen’s addendum in the 90-point post is:
This post was edited to fix a few problems and errors. If you are at all interested in more details behind the illusion presented here, there are a handful of excellent comments below.
and links my very 12 point comment as being an excellent one. And note that I said I was being “brutally honest” (i.e. an admittedly candid opinion) and that it bothers me, not that it’s something wrong in a more objective sense.
There was a reason for that phrasing, and I trust you adjusted for it.
and links my very 12 point comment as being an excellent one. And note that I said I was being “brutally honest” (i.e. an admittedly candid opinion) and that it bothers me, not that it’s something wrong in a more objective sense.
(I expect brutally honest to warn that the honesty reflects poorly on someone else. “I must admit” would “to be honest” make me expect a more self-reflective admission.)
I upvoted the post because this comment looks to me like an attempt to control other people’s votes.
Since you mention it, I’ve noticed the suspicious phenomenon of PhilGoetz’s top-level posts getting modded down harshly and then, without supporting posts showing up, they come back into positive territory. Exactly what’s happening here.
This is an unusual pattern to consistently happen—I hope no one is acting as a “plunge protection team” for anyone :-/
This is happening to almost every post. Mine are displaying the same behavior. My last two posts are at +6, +8 but the impression I got from the comments was almost entirely negative.
That looks like a different phenomenon: in this one, you drew out interesting comments (which you noted in an addendum), and so people may have been modding that up. And I think that one only went down to −1, and the other one never went into negative territory.
(Though yes, to be brutally honest, it does bother me that the new karma system gives someone 90 points for this, but 12 points for this. )
In the case of PhilGoetz’s posts, I’ve seen at least two others go down to something like −4, and then, long after people have moved on, it goes positive. Hmmm...
Your example is valid, and you added the disclaimer of brutal honesty, but I had an instinctive negative reaction to the fact that you used your own comment as the prime example of karma injustice. (Ev-psych story: holding oneself up as the victim of injustice might get a person what they want, but it often comes off as a strong signal of low status.)
As a point of style, this would be something to avoid where possible.
ETA: This… looks harsher than I intended. I was hoping to give advice about an aspect of navigating this kind of social world, not to attack the quality of the comment above. Maybe I need to eat dinner before commenting again.
It can, but there is a line in there between ‘victim of injustice’ and ‘someone who has the social resources to get away with demanding more status by claiming offence’. It comes down to how good you are at framing situations and how scared other people are of rejecting or ignoring your claim.
I agree with your general point, but look at the specifics of this case. MrHen’s addendum in the 90-point post is:
and links my very 12 point comment as being an excellent one. And note that I said I was being “brutally honest” (i.e. an admittedly candid opinion) and that it bothers me, not that it’s something wrong in a more objective sense.
There was a reason for that phrasing, and I trust you adjusted for it.
(I expect brutally honest to warn that the honesty reflects poorly on someone else. “I must admit” would “to be honest” make me expect a more self-reflective admission.)