I donât fully understand what youâre saying, but my guess is that youâre saying is like, that a userâs total karma and divide that by votes.
Ya, thatâs right, total karma divided by the number of votes.
I donât understand what it means to âgive weight to thisââdoes the resulting calculation become their strong vote power?
What I proposed could be what determines strong vote power alone, but strong vote power could be based on a combination of multiple things. What I meant by âgive weight to thisâ is that it could just be one of multiple determinants of strong vote power.
A deeper issue is that people will be much more risk averse in a system like this that awards them for their average, not total karma.
This is why I was thinking it would only be one factor. We could use both their total and average to determine the strong vote power. But also, maybe a bit of risk-aversion is good? The EA Forum is getting used more, so it would be good if the comments and posts people made were high quality rather than noise.
Also, again, it wouldnât penalize users for making comments that donât get voted on; it encourages them to chase strong upvotes and avoid downvotes (relative to regular upvotes or no votes).
Ya, thatâs right, total karma divided by the number of votes.
What I proposed could be what determines strong vote power alone, but strong vote power could be based on a combination of multiple things. What I meant by âgive weight to thisâ is that it could just be one of multiple determinants of strong vote power.
This is why I was thinking it would only be one factor. We could use both their total and average to determine the strong vote power. But also, maybe a bit of risk-aversion is good? The EA Forum is getting used more, so it would be good if the comments and posts people made were high quality rather than noise.
Also, again, it wouldnât penalize users for making comments that donât get voted on; it encourages them to chase strong upvotes and avoid downvotes (relative to regular upvotes or no votes).