Off-the-cuff objection: this works inasmuch as karma is a game to get a fancy high number. But if you think of karma as the measure of the siteās trust in a user, I donāt want the site to trust the user less because they have elected to reward other users.
Also, what do you think of karma as a measure to the contribution of a post to the community? I realize that I am conflating this with a measure of trust, but these are not the same.
When I upvote, I usually think of how useful I think of the post for the community. Say, downvote a post because it was a waste of my time
Karma is awarded definitely as a recognition of the usefulness of the contribution. The userās overall karma is an unprincipled straight addition of those āusefulness scoresā. Still, itās the closest thing the site has to itās trust in the user and we use it to award: a) More influence in the form of higher-powered votes b) More ability to moderate oneās own posts (ability to moderate personal blogposts at 50 karma, and those that have been promoted to the frontpage or community at 2000)
Yea, makes sense. I guess that Iām just piggybacking on the karma to make trade easier.
Maybe you can have Total gained Karma and Unused Karma, where the siteās trust is based on theTotal, and you can only pay using the Unused but any gain is to them both.
This still leaves an option for two members to juts transfer eachother karma and artificially increase thie trust level. This is not that bad as it only amounts to 2 times as large, and I do not realy think that people on the forum would do that.
Weāve been thinking about how to make strong upvotes more costly to the user, but my memory is that Oliver (of LessWrong) wanted users not to have to manage resources.
Off-the-cuff objection: this works inasmuch as karma is a game to get a fancy high number. But if you think of karma as the measure of the siteās trust in a user, I donāt want the site to trust the user less because they have elected to reward other users.
Also, what do you think of karma as a measure to the contribution of a post to the community? I realize that I am conflating this with a measure of trust, but these are not the same.
When I upvote, I usually think of how useful I think of the post for the community. Say, downvote a post because it was a waste of my time
Karma is awarded definitely as a recognition of the usefulness of the contribution. The userās overall karma is an unprincipled straight addition of those āusefulness scoresā. Still, itās the closest thing the site has to itās trust in the user and we use it to award:
a) More influence in the form of higher-powered votes
b) More ability to moderate oneās own posts (ability to moderate personal blogposts at 50 karma, and those that have been promoted to the frontpage or community at 2000)
Yea, makes sense. I guess that Iām just piggybacking on the karma to make trade easier.
Maybe you can have Total gained Karma and Unused Karma, where the siteās trust is based on theTotal, and you can only pay using the Unused but any gain is to them both. This still leaves an option for two members to juts transfer eachother karma and artificially increase thie trust level. This is not that bad as it only amounts to 2 times as large, and I do not realy think that people on the forum would do that.
Weāve been thinking about how to make strong upvotes more costly to the user, but my memory is that Oliver (of LessWrong) wanted users not to have to manage resources.