The main issue and the reason why I’m commenting is that I’m concerned about the voting patterns.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted:
I’m not sure why the top comment is sitting at +1 and has 5 votes.
I’m not sure why an EA CEO has strong upvoted themselves in a thread involving mis/inaction of their org.
So, the “smell” of this voting is sort of intense.
Entirely setting aside this particular event, or the particular people involved, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about setting examples or norms of behavior that involve control over EA institutions.
Like, funding is growing, and there’s incentive for would be “CEOs” or “EDs” to basically take the “outer-product” of the set of cause areas and set of obvious EA meta institutions, take an element from the resulting matrix and instantiate it.
In particular, people might do this because inputs/performance is hard to observe for “CEOs”, once starting it’s hard to dislodge, and in these meta orgs, existence or demand is conflated with the EA brand (allowing failure upwards).
So, in this situation, it’s already “quickdraw”.
So, let’s not add the feature of having constituencies of these warlords, voting on stuff, that situation is No Bueno.
You have put more thought than me. Also, I self strong upvote a lot.
But your suggestion would be counterproductive in some of the scenarios I’ve implied above. The user who had been downvoted has almost 7,000 karma. Removing self-strong upvoting would weaken the “self-defence” of established users while being “mobbed”.
The main issue and the reason why I’m commenting is that I’m concerned about the voting patterns.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted:
I’m not sure why the top comment is sitting at +1 and has 5 votes.
I’m not sure why an EA CEO has strong upvoted themselves in a thread involving mis/inaction of their org.
So, the “smell” of this voting is sort of intense.
Entirely setting aside this particular event, or the particular people involved, I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about setting examples or norms of behavior that involve control over EA institutions.
Like, funding is growing, and there’s incentive for would be “CEOs” or “EDs” to basically take the “outer-product” of the set of cause areas and set of obvious EA meta institutions, take an element from the resulting matrix and instantiate it.
In particular, people might do this because inputs/performance is hard to observe for “CEOs”, once starting it’s hard to dislodge, and in these meta orgs, existence or demand is conflated with the EA brand (allowing failure upwards).
So, in this situation, it’s already “quickdraw”.
So, let’s not add the feature of having constituencies of these warlords, voting on stuff, that situation is No Bueno.
I think that strong upvoting of your own comments should be disabled. I’ve noticed that it’s quite frequent.
See previous discussion about this.
You have put more thought than me. Also, I self strong upvote a lot.
But your suggestion would be counterproductive in some of the scenarios I’ve implied above. The user who had been downvoted has almost 7,000 karma. Removing self-strong upvoting would weaken the “self-defence” of established users while being “mobbed”.