Unfortunately, some people use the karma downvote as a disagree vote, even though it’s supposed to be used to indicate the quality of a contribution, rather than whether you agree or disagree.
If you see a comment you disagree with but is civil and attempts to make a constructive contribution to the discussion, ideally you should disagree vote it and either not karma vote it or karma upvote it. But some people will karma downvote.
Yea agreeably so! In order to prevent this, it would be helpful to atleast set a reasoning dialogue box before downvoting. If possible the names should also be displayed for both upvoters and downvoters. This brings transparency and responsibility.
P.S: I’m referring to healthy transparency and responsible behaviour. I can’t help but think that the coordinating team who did not have valid justifications for their claims or an answer to my comment, could have done the heavy downvoting instead of owning up the situation and turn up responsibly.
If possible the names should also be displayed for both upvoters and downvoters. This brings transparency and responsibility.
In my view, this would be very harmful. For example, it’s not uncommon for a post to criticize a person or organization with significant power or influence in EA. Giving the criticized organization a list of people who upvoted criticisms and/​or downvoted defenses would seriously chill and distort voting. We want people to vote their honest viewpoints without calculating whether their vote could come back to cost them in career opportunities or the like. (Similar problems exist when the poster/​commenter is powerful or influential.)
We have a mechanism to address directly-involved people casting iffy upvotes/​downvotes: the rest of the community can use their votes to correct the situation if they think the karma on the post/​comment is too high or too low. The mechanism isn’t perfect, but I don’t think there’s a better one out there.
Personally, I would prefer that people with significant direct involvement (here, the organizers and the people who were directly and significantly harmed by the challenged decision) not karma-vote at all. But that is not a viable restriction to implement at a technical level (in part because the mods would have to know whose votes to disable on both sides).
out of all places, I’d like to believe that EA community should not be the zone where people have to think of costs for being transparent or honest. If it is the case, it is unfortunate and we might want to change a lot internally before trying to think about the world outside EA.
Unfortunately, some people use the karma downvote as a disagree vote, even though it’s supposed to be used to indicate the quality of a contribution, rather than whether you agree or disagree.
If you see a comment you disagree with but is civil and attempts to make a constructive contribution to the discussion, ideally you should disagree vote it and either not karma vote it or karma upvote it. But some people will karma downvote.
Agree with this, although for completeness: some people use the karma upvote as a agree vote, which also poses problems.
Yea agreeably so! In order to prevent this, it would be helpful to atleast set a reasoning dialogue box before downvoting. If possible the names should also be displayed for both upvoters and downvoters. This brings transparency and responsibility.
P.S: I’m referring to healthy transparency and responsible behaviour. I can’t help but think that the coordinating team who did not have valid justifications for their claims or an answer to my comment, could have done the heavy downvoting instead of owning up the situation and turn up responsibly.
In my view, this would be very harmful. For example, it’s not uncommon for a post to criticize a person or organization with significant power or influence in EA. Giving the criticized organization a list of people who upvoted criticisms and/​or downvoted defenses would seriously chill and distort voting. We want people to vote their honest viewpoints without calculating whether their vote could come back to cost them in career opportunities or the like. (Similar problems exist when the poster/​commenter is powerful or influential.)
We have a mechanism to address directly-involved people casting iffy upvotes/​downvotes: the rest of the community can use their votes to correct the situation if they think the karma on the post/​comment is too high or too low. The mechanism isn’t perfect, but I don’t think there’s a better one out there.
Personally, I would prefer that people with significant direct involvement (here, the organizers and the people who were directly and significantly harmed by the challenged decision) not karma-vote at all. But that is not a viable restriction to implement at a technical level (in part because the mods would have to know whose votes to disable on both sides).
out of all places, I’d like to believe that EA community should not be the zone where people have to think of costs for being transparent or honest. If it is the case, it is unfortunate and we might want to change a lot internally before trying to think about the world outside EA.