Fwiw I downvoted this post because it doesn’t say anything substantial about what you think CSER and Leverhulme are doing wrong, so it just comes across as abuse.
@Habryka I’m just gonna call you out here. Someone −9ed my above comment in a single vote, and there are only about two people on the forum who that could be, one of who is the person I was criticising.
Given that I (I think clearly) meant this as a constructive remark, and that you’re one of the most influential people in the EA movement, and that EA is supposed to encourage transparency and criticism, this sends a fairly unambiguous signal that the latter isn’t really true.
In fact, I genuinely now imagine I’ve lost some small likelihood of being received positively by you if I ever approach Lightcone for support (and that I’m losing more by writing this). This seems like a bad sign for EA epistemic health.
Please say if this wasn’t you, and I’ll retract and apologise.
There are, I believe, fifteen people with +9 strongvotes (the fifteen with 10K+ karma). You can search the People directory by karma to see the list.
As of one those people, I wish there was a smallish chance our strongvotes would count as +8 and a small chance the +8 people’s votes would count as +9 to make attempted identification of a voter more difficult.
Another option is to let people with a voting power of n cast a vote of any strength between 1 and n. This may be somewhat challenging from a UI perspective, though.
Yeah, I’ve considered this a bunch (especially after my upvote strength on LW went up to 10, which really limits the number of people in my reference class).
I think a whole multi-selection UI would be hard, but maybe having a user setting that you can change on your profile where you can set your upvote-strength to be any number between 1 and your current vote strength seems less convenient but much easier UI wise. It would require some kind of involved changes in the way votes are stored (since we currently have an invariant that guarantees you can recalculate any users karma from nothing but the vote table, and this would introduce a new dependency into that that would have some reasonably big performance implications).
Alternatively, you could make the downvote button reduce votes by one if the vote count is positive, and vice versa. For example, after casting a +9 on a comment by strongly upvoting it, the user can reduce the vote strength to +7 by pressing the downvote button twice.
Another idea: force each tier of votes to have at least say 10 members. So even when the highest karma person breaches a new threshold, they don’t get the extra firepower until there are at least nine other great powers to join them.
(I care quite a bit about votes being anonymous, so will generally glomarize in basically all situations where someone asks me about my voting behavior or the voting behavior of others, sorry about that)
Fwiw I downvoted this post because it doesn’t say anything substantial about what you think CSER and Leverhulme are doing wrong, so it just comes across as abuse.
@Habryka I’m just gonna call you out here. Someone −9ed my above comment in a single vote, and there are only about two people on the forum who that could be, one of who is the person I was criticising.
Given that I (I think clearly) meant this as a constructive remark, and that you’re one of the most influential people in the EA movement, and that EA is supposed to encourage transparency and criticism, this sends a fairly unambiguous signal that the latter isn’t really true.
In fact, I genuinely now imagine I’ve lost some small likelihood of being received positively by you if I ever approach Lightcone for support (and that I’m losing more by writing this). This seems like a bad sign for EA epistemic health.
Please say if this wasn’t you, and I’ll retract and apologise.
I think many people have a voting power of 9. I do, and I know many people with more karma than me.
There are, I believe, fifteen people with +9 strongvotes (the fifteen with 10K+ karma). You can search the People directory by karma to see the list.
As of one those people, I wish there was a smallish chance our strongvotes would count as +8 and a small chance the +8 people’s votes would count as +9 to make attempted identification of a voter more difficult.
Another option is to let people with a voting power of n cast a vote of any strength between 1 and n. This may be somewhat challenging from a UI perspective, though.
Yeah, I’ve considered this a bunch (especially after my upvote strength on LW went up to 10, which really limits the number of people in my reference class).
I think a whole multi-selection UI would be hard, but maybe having a user setting that you can change on your profile where you can set your upvote-strength to be any number between 1 and your current vote strength seems less convenient but much easier UI wise. It would require some kind of involved changes in the way votes are stored (since we currently have an invariant that guarantees you can recalculate any users karma from nothing but the vote table, and this would introduce a new dependency into that that would have some reasonably big performance implications).
Alternatively, you could make the downvote button reduce votes by one if the vote count is positive, and vice versa. For example, after casting a +9 on a comment by strongly upvoting it, the user can reduce the vote strength to +7 by pressing the downvote button twice.
That’s an interesting idea, I hadn’t considered that!
Another idea: force each tier of votes to have at least say 10 members. So even when the highest karma person breaches a new threshold, they don’t get the extra firepower until there are at least nine other great powers to join them.
(I care quite a bit about votes being anonymous, so will generally glomarize in basically all situations where someone asks me about my voting behavior or the voting behavior of others, sorry about that)