I’ve heard it used to be that way, but when I first joined LW around 2011 (under a different account than this one) comments already started from zero, and the tooltip with the % positive wasn’t implemented until much later (around 2013 IIRC).
% positive wasn’t implemented until much later (around 2013 IIRC).
Yes, I agree with this. Anyway, the bottom line is this:
I am very confident that I was karmassasinated or whatever you want to call it. Because I clearly remember having a heated exchange with a couple other posters and right afterwards my karma score dropped a huge amount in a short time, I checked and it was clear that one or more people went back and downvoted lots and lots of my posts in a short span of time.
Apart from my own observations, there is decent evidence that this happened—otherwise I would not have been mentioned in the earlier thread on this subject.
Viliam_Bur seems quite hostile to any suggestion that it happened to me, it seems he is looking for reasons to deny or downplay it.
The obvious explanation for this is that it’s political. The one poster who was banned had politically unpopular views. As I recall, the issue I was karma-killed over was one where I had taken the politically unpopular view.
I do not lose sleep over my karma score or even care about it that much, but what I loath is when politics informs peoples’ judgment like this, especially on a discussion board where people are supposed to be on the lookup for this type of behavior.
I do not lose sleep over my karma score or even care about it that much
And so after seven months of being absent from LW you pop up to remind everyone how you were karmassasinated and implying that the moderator was fine with that...
And so after seven months of being absent from LW you pop up to remind everyone how you were karmassasinated
Pretty much. Do you think there’s a contradiction there?
and implying that the moderator was fine with that...
Implying that political considerations were more important. I have a feeling that the persons who did it are more popular than the fellow who was banned over this stuff.
Ok, so this piece of evidence is equally consistent with my caring primarily about the political issue.
I don’t know—I haven’t paid that much attention.
Then this piece of evidence isn’t so great either. See below.
But are you saying you’re entirely free of contradictions..?
Nope, but I have a strong tendency to engage with anyone who makes such an assertion. Mainly because I’m an argumentative person and also somewhat vain, but also because there is a chance I will learn something useful.
In any event, the point is that the fact that I am having this exchange is not evidence of my caring either way -- I argue with pretty much anyone who asserts that my position is contradictory.
The evidence, of course is weak. But then I have a fairly strong prior which says that someone who is “an argumentative person and also somewhat vain” will care about proxies for respect and status—such as karma—more than about political possibly-issues at a forum he does not frequent any more.
But then I have a fairly strong prior which says that someone who is “an argumentative person and also somewhat vain” will care about proxies for respect and status—such as karma—more than about political possibly-issues at a forum he does not frequent any more.
When did you become confident that I was an argumentative person and also somewhat vain?
The argumentativeness was always visible, as to “vain”, your previous comment was very convenient :-) but you never looked like you were indifferent to your image.
The argumentativeness was always visible, as to “vain”, your previous comment was very convenient :-) but you never looked like you were indifferent to your image.
Ok, so let’s see if I have your argument straight:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares a great deal about his karma score, to the point where even weak evidence leads to a high degree of confidence that a complaint which relates to karma is primarily due to his concern for his karma score per se and no other considerations.
I have never said anything about “much”, “a great deal” or anything like that.
even weak evidence leads to a high degree of confidence
A twofer! :-) First, I explicitly said that “the evidence, of course is weak” and that I rely on my prior. Second, I never characterized the degree of my confidence.
concern for his karma score per se and no other considerations.
I explicitly said “and these two things are not exclusive, of course.”
I have never said anything about “much”, “a great deal” or anything like that.
It’s pretty much implied since it leads to reasonable confidence despite weak evidence. However, I will tweak my summary. See below.
A twofer! :-) First, I explicitly said that “the evidence, of course is weak”
Right. So even weak evidence is enough to make you reasonably confident.
Second, I never characterized the degree of my confidence.
You said you were “reasonably confident.” Confident enough to accuse me of misstating my motivations. Anyway, I will tweak my summary of your position. See below.
I explicitly said “and these two things are not exclusive, of course.”
It seemed that you were talking about the distinction between lying and being mistaken. However I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt. See below.
Anyway, it seems your position is this:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares about his karma score enough that even weak evidence (e.g. that he continues to behave in an argumentative fashion) leads you to be reasonably confident that a complaint which relates to karma is due in large part to his concern for his karma score per se, as distinguished from his expressed concern about the politics of the situation.
Does that accurately summarize your argument?
I think your beliefs are in need of updating.
I have a feeling it is your beliefs which are in need of updating, but first I would like to nail down your exact argument.
You seem to have a habit of confusing what I actually said and what you imply about me. It’s not me who used the expression “reasonably confident”, it’s you.
Anyway, it seems your position is this:
An improvement, but still not exactly there. To speed things up I’ll rewrite it a bit with my changes in bolded parts:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares about his karma score enough that even weak evidence (e.g. coming back after a long absence to enter extended discussions about his karma) along with a strong prior leads you to believe that a complaint which relates to karma is due in large part to his concern for his karma score per se, as distinguished from his expressed concern about the politics of the situation.
You seem to have a habit of confusing what I actually said and what you imply about me. It’s not me who used the expression “reasonably confident”, it’s you.
And you seemed to agree with that characterization of your position:
Me: Ok, so you are reasonably confident that I am wrong, but you do not know whether I am lying or mistaken or both. Why are you so confident?
You: Because you caring about karma is a simpler explanation that fits my priors well and is entirely consistent with the evidence that I see.
But perhaps I was mistaken: Are you “reasonably confident” or not?
I did not and do not intend to correct everything that’s wrong in your comments.
For the purpose of posting my opinion on LW I am reasonably confident.
Then it seem not to be wrong after all. Please refrain from nitpicking.
That one.
I’m a little confused. How is that different from the prior of being “argumentative and not indifferent to [one’s] image ” Is it different? Or merely redundant?
Yes you do. You just agreed that you were “reasonably confident”:
For the purpose of posting my opinion on LW I am reasonably confident.
It’s true that I should have said “you seemed to agree that you were ‘reasonably confident,’” but now you’ve said it anyway, i.e. that you are “reasonably confident.” (for purposes of posting your opinion on LW) So my position stands. And please stop nitpicking.
Well, why don’t you re-read the thread and unconfuse yourself?
I’m trying to give you the chance to clarify your position. It seems that the “strong prior” you are referring to is essentially the same as “argumentative and not indifferent to your image.” But if I am mistaken, I would like to know. Otherwise, I will assume that you are merely repeating yourself.
I don’t consider pointing out fake quotes “nitpicking”.
Even if (1) it turns out to actually reflect the person’s position; (2) the quoter admits that he was quoting his own language which he thought the person had agreed with; and (3) the quoter admits that he should have made this clear? (Which I do in fact admit.)
That’s OK, I’ll pass on that chance
Suit yourself. I will now scrutinize your argument:
First of all, your “weak” evidence (and yes, you actually used the word “weak”) can reasonably be described as non-evidence. Because arguing about something related to karma a few months after the initial exchange is at least as consistent with being “argumentative and not indifferent to one’s image” as it is with being focused on karma per se.
Second, your “strong priors” are extremely weak at best. Being argumentative is not particularly consistent with being focused on karma scores. Indeed, being argumentative frequently results in a loss of karma. Being “not indifferent” to one’s image is at least as consistent with “not caring about one’s karma score too much” as it is with caring about it to the point of caring about it more than the (possibly) political aspects of the situation.
So it seems that your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny. You assert that you have “strong priors” but you offer no evidence or coherent argument as to why these “strong priors” are so strong. So as I alluded to above, it looks like you are the one whose beliefs need to be updated.
Of course, because I was not aware of my mistake until after you pointed it out. Again, I should have said “it seems you agree that.” So I hereby take back my statement (with my apologies for giving the impression that I was quoting you) and replace it with “it seems you agree that.”
My argument stands. But please feel free to continue your nitpicking.
Not much of a scrutiny. You just restated that you disagree and, well, we knew that already
Not at all, I explained why you were wrong. For example, I pointed out why “being argumentative” is not a very good proxy for “being concerned about karma.” To borrow an idea, I suggest you re-read and attempt to un-confuse yourself.
I’ve heard it used to be that way, but when I first joined LW around 2011 (under a different account than this one) comments already started from zero, and the tooltip with the % positive wasn’t implemented until much later (around 2013 IIRC).
Yes, I agree with this. Anyway, the bottom line is this:
I am very confident that I was karmassasinated or whatever you want to call it. Because I clearly remember having a heated exchange with a couple other posters and right afterwards my karma score dropped a huge amount in a short time, I checked and it was clear that one or more people went back and downvoted lots and lots of my posts in a short span of time.
Apart from my own observations, there is decent evidence that this happened—otherwise I would not have been mentioned in the earlier thread on this subject.
Viliam_Bur seems quite hostile to any suggestion that it happened to me, it seems he is looking for reasons to deny or downplay it.
The obvious explanation for this is that it’s political. The one poster who was banned had politically unpopular views. As I recall, the issue I was karma-killed over was one where I had taken the politically unpopular view.
I do not lose sleep over my karma score or even care about it that much, but what I loath is when politics informs peoples’ judgment like this, especially on a discussion board where people are supposed to be on the lookup for this type of behavior.
And so after seven months of being absent from LW you pop up to remind everyone how you were karmassasinated and implying that the moderator was fine with that...
Pretty much. Do you think there’s a contradiction there?
Implying that political considerations were more important. I have a feeling that the persons who did it are more popular than the fellow who was banned over this stuff.
Yes. Specifically, with the “do not .. even care about it that much” part.
Do you think I am lying or mistaken when I state that what bothers me is the (perceived) political influence on the situation?
I have no basis to judge. And these two things are not exclusive, of course.
Ok, so you are reasonably confident that I am wrong, but you do not know whether I am lying or mistaken or both. Why are you so confident?
Because you caring about karma is a simpler explanation that fits my priors well and is entirely consistent with the evidence that I see.
Would you care to summarize the evidence?
You came back after seven months of absence to talk about your karma
We are having this very conversation
Well I also talked about the political issue too, correct?
Have you ever known me not to engage with anyone who asserts I have acted in a contradictory way?
Yes. See here :-)
I don’t know—I haven’t paid that much attention. But are you saying you’re entirely free of contradictions..?
Ok, so this piece of evidence is equally consistent with my caring primarily about the political issue.
Then this piece of evidence isn’t so great either. See below.
Nope, but I have a strong tendency to engage with anyone who makes such an assertion. Mainly because I’m an argumentative person and also somewhat vain, but also because there is a chance I will learn something useful.
In any event, the point is that the fact that I am having this exchange is not evidence of my caring either way -- I argue with pretty much anyone who asserts that my position is contradictory.
The evidence, of course is weak. But then I have a fairly strong prior which says that someone who is “an argumentative person and also somewhat vain” will care about proxies for respect and status—such as karma—more than about political possibly-issues at a forum he does not frequent any more.
When did you become confident that I was an argumentative person and also somewhat vain?
The argumentativeness was always visible, as to “vain”, your previous comment was very convenient :-) but you never looked like you were indifferent to your image.
Ok, so let’s see if I have your argument straight:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares a great deal about his karma score, to the point where even weak evidence leads to a high degree of confidence that a complaint which relates to karma is primarily due to his concern for his karma score per se and no other considerations.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
No, not quite. Would you like to extract the straw you stuffed into that paragraph and try again?
Umm, I would like you to explain exactly how I have (according to you) mischaracterized your argument.
Let me ask you first whether you believe you have characterized my argument fairly.
Yes I do. Now please answer my question: How exactly have I (according to you) mischaracterized your argument?
I have never said anything about “much”, “a great deal” or anything like that.
A twofer! :-) First, I explicitly said that “the evidence, of course is weak” and that I rely on my prior. Second, I never characterized the degree of my confidence.
I explicitly said “and these two things are not exclusive, of course.”
I think your beliefs are in need of updating.
It’s pretty much implied since it leads to reasonable confidence despite weak evidence. However, I will tweak my summary. See below.
Right. So even weak evidence is enough to make you reasonably confident.
You said you were “reasonably confident.” Confident enough to accuse me of misstating my motivations. Anyway, I will tweak my summary of your position. See below.
It seemed that you were talking about the distinction between lying and being mistaken. However I will be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt. See below.
Anyway, it seems your position is this:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares about his karma score enough that even weak evidence (e.g. that he continues to behave in an argumentative fashion) leads you to be reasonably confident that a complaint which relates to karma is due in large part to his concern for his karma score per se, as distinguished from his expressed concern about the politics of the situation.
Does that accurately summarize your argument?
I have a feeling it is your beliefs which are in need of updating, but first I would like to nail down your exact argument.
You seem to have a habit of confusing what I actually said and what you imply about me. It’s not me who used the expression “reasonably confident”, it’s you.
An improvement, but still not exactly there. To speed things up I’ll rewrite it a bit with my changes in bolded parts:
Someone who is argumentative and not indifferent to his image probably cares about his karma score enough that even weak evidence (e.g. coming back after a long absence to enter extended discussions about his karma) along with a strong prior leads you to believe that a complaint which relates to karma is due in large part to his concern for his karma score per se, as distinguished from his expressed concern about the politics of the situation.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
And you seemed to agree with that characterization of your position:
Me: Ok, so you are reasonably confident that I am wrong, but you do not know whether I am lying or mistaken or both. Why are you so confident?
You: Because you caring about karma is a simpler explanation that fits my priors well and is entirely consistent with the evidence that I see.
But perhaps I was mistaken: Are you “reasonably confident” or not?
What prior are you referring to?
I did not and do not intend to correct everything that’s wrong in your comments.
“Reasonably” depends on the context, just like the word “useful” it asks “for which purpose?”
For the purpose of posting my opinion on LW I am reasonably confident.
That one.
Then it seem not to be wrong after all. Please refrain from nitpicking.
I’m a little confused. How is that different from the prior of being “argumentative and not indifferent to [one’s] image ” Is it different? Or merely redundant?
As I just told you, I don’t nitpick. However I do object to people inventing fake quotes of me complete with quotation marks.
Well, why don’t you re-read the thread and unconfuse yourself?
Yes you do. You just agreed that you were “reasonably confident”:
It’s true that I should have said “you seemed to agree that you were ‘reasonably confident,’” but now you’ve said it anyway, i.e. that you are “reasonably confident.” (for purposes of posting your opinion on LW) So my position stands. And please stop nitpicking.
I’m trying to give you the chance to clarify your position. It seems that the “strong prior” you are referring to is essentially the same as “argumentative and not indifferent to your image.” But if I am mistaken, I would like to know. Otherwise, I will assume that you are merely repeating yourself.
I don’t consider pointing out fake quotes “nitpicking”.
That’s OK, I’ll pass on that chance. My recommendation to go unconfuse yourself still stands.
Even if (1) it turns out to actually reflect the person’s position; (2) the quoter admits that he was quoting his own language which he thought the person had agreed with; and (3) the quoter admits that he should have made this clear? (Which I do in fact admit.)
Suit yourself. I will now scrutinize your argument:
First of all, your “weak” evidence (and yes, you actually used the word “weak”) can reasonably be described as non-evidence. Because arguing about something related to karma a few months after the initial exchange is at least as consistent with being “argumentative and not indifferent to one’s image” as it is with being focused on karma per se.
Second, your “strong priors” are extremely weak at best. Being argumentative is not particularly consistent with being focused on karma scores. Indeed, being argumentative frequently results in a loss of karma. Being “not indifferent” to one’s image is at least as consistent with “not caring about one’s karma score too much” as it is with caring about it to the point of caring about it more than the (possibly) political aspects of the situation.
So it seems that your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny. You assert that you have “strong priors” but you offer no evidence or coherent argument as to why these “strong priors” are so strong. So as I alluded to above, it looks like you are the one whose beliefs need to be updated.
Yes, even if. Of course, everything that “the quoter admits” he admits only after I pointed out that the quote is fake.
Not much of a scrutiny. You just restated that you disagree and, well, we knew that already. My position is unchanged.
Anything else?
Ok, enjoy your nitpicking then.
Of course, because I was not aware of my mistake until after you pointed it out. Again, I should have said “it seems you agree that.” So I hereby take back my statement (with my apologies for giving the impression that I was quoting you) and replace it with “it seems you agree that.”
My argument stands. But please feel free to continue your nitpicking.
Not at all, I explained why you were wrong. For example, I pointed out why “being argumentative” is not a very good proxy for “being concerned about karma.” To borrow an idea, I suggest you re-read and attempt to un-confuse yourself.