I think this highlights why some necessary design features of the karma system don’t translate well to a system that imposes soft suspensions on users. (To be clear, I find a one-comment-per-day limit based on the past 20 comments/posts to cross the line into soft suspension territory; I do not suggest that rate limits are inherently soft suspensions.)
I wrote a few days ago about why karma votes need to be anonymous and shouldn’t (at least generally) require the voter to explain their reasoning; the votes suggested general agreement on those points. But a soft suspension of an established user is a different animal, and requires greater safeguards to protect both the user and the openness of the Forum to alternative views.
I should emphasize that I don’t know who cast the downvotes that led to Yarrow’s soft suspension (which were on this post about MIRI), or why they cast their votes. I also don’t follow MIRI’s work carefully enough to have a clear opinion on the merits of any individual vote through the lights of the ordinary purposes of karma. So I do not intend to imply dodgy conduct by anyone. But: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” People who are considering stating unpopular opinions shouldn’t have to trust voters to the extent they have to at present to avoid being soft suspended.
Neutrality: Because the votes were anonymous, it is possible that people who were involved in the dispute were casting votes that had the effect of soft-suspending Yarrow.
Accountability: No one has to accept responsibility and the potential for criticism for imposing a soft-suspension via karma downvotes. Not even in their own minds—since nominally all they did was downvote particular posts.
Representativeness: A relatively small number of users on a single thread—for whom there is no evidence of being representative of the Forum community as a whole—cast the votes in question. Their votes have decided for the rest of the community that we won’t be hearing much from Yarrow (on any topic) for a while.[1]
Reasoning transparency: Stating (or at least documenting) one’s reasoning serves as a check on decisions made on minimal or iffy reasoning getting through. [Moreover, even if voters had been doing so silently, they were unlikely to be reasoning about a vote to soft suspend Yarrow, which is what their votes were whether they realized it or not.]
There are good reasons to find that the virtues of accountability, representativeness, and reasoning transparency are outweighed by other considerations when it comes to karma generally. (As for neutrality, I think we have to accept that technical and practical limitations exist.) But their absence when deciding to soft suspend someone creates too high a risk of error for the affected user, too high a risk of suppressing viewpoints that are unpopular with elements of the Forum userbase, and too much chilling effect on users’ willingness to state certain viewpoints. I continue to believe that, for more established users, karma count should only trigger a moderator review to assess whether a soft suspension is warranted.
Although the mods aren’t necessarily representative in the abstract, they are more likely to not have particular views on a given issue than the group of people who actively participate on a given thread (and especially those who read the heavily downvoted comments on that thread). I also think the mods are likely to have a better understanding of their role as representatives of the community than individual voters do, which mitigates this concern.
I think this highlights why some necessary design features of the karma system don’t translate well to a system that imposes soft suspensions on users. (To be clear, I find a one-comment-per-day limit based on the past 20 comments/posts to cross the line into soft suspension territory; I do not suggest that rate limits are inherently soft suspensions.)
I wrote a few days ago about why karma votes need to be anonymous and shouldn’t (at least generally) require the voter to explain their reasoning; the votes suggested general agreement on those points. But a soft suspension of an established user is a different animal, and requires greater safeguards to protect both the user and the openness of the Forum to alternative views.
I should emphasize that I don’t know who cast the downvotes that led to Yarrow’s soft suspension (which were on this post about MIRI), or why they cast their votes. I also don’t follow MIRI’s work carefully enough to have a clear opinion on the merits of any individual vote through the lights of the ordinary purposes of karma. So I do not intend to imply dodgy conduct by anyone. But: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” People who are considering stating unpopular opinions shouldn’t have to trust voters to the extent they have to at present to avoid being soft suspended.
Neutrality: Because the votes were anonymous, it is possible that people who were involved in the dispute were casting votes that had the effect of soft-suspending Yarrow.
Accountability: No one has to accept responsibility and the potential for criticism for imposing a soft-suspension via karma downvotes. Not even in their own minds—since nominally all they did was downvote particular posts.
Representativeness: A relatively small number of users on a single thread—for whom there is no evidence of being representative of the Forum community as a whole—cast the votes in question. Their votes have decided for the rest of the community that we won’t be hearing much from Yarrow (on any topic) for a while.[1]
Reasoning transparency: Stating (or at least documenting) one’s reasoning serves as a check on decisions made on minimal or iffy reasoning getting through. [Moreover, even if voters had been doing so silently, they were unlikely to be reasoning about a vote to soft suspend Yarrow, which is what their votes were whether they realized it or not.]
There are good reasons to find that the virtues of accountability, representativeness, and reasoning transparency are outweighed by other considerations when it comes to karma generally. (As for neutrality, I think we have to accept that technical and practical limitations exist.) But their absence when deciding to soft suspend someone creates too high a risk of error for the affected user, too high a risk of suppressing viewpoints that are unpopular with elements of the Forum userbase, and too much chilling effect on users’ willingness to state certain viewpoints. I continue to believe that, for more established users, karma count should only trigger a moderator review to assess whether a soft suspension is warranted.
Although the mods aren’t necessarily representative in the abstract, they are more likely to not have particular views on a given issue than the group of people who actively participate on a given thread (and especially those who read the heavily downvoted comments on that thread). I also think the mods are likely to have a better understanding of their role as representatives of the community than individual voters do, which mitigates this concern.