I think this method of “promoting a post” should be discouraged in the EA community.
The community’s attention is a limited resource. Gaining more upvotes in an “artificial” way is roughly a zero-sum game with other writers on this forum and it adds noise to the useful signal that the karma score provides. It also seems counterproductive in terms of fostering good coordination norms within the community.
As a clarification: I don’t think “here are some good effects that would come out of getting lots of upvotes” would count as such an argument.
I am now feeling like the legitimate use cases for such arguments might be narrow enough, and their benefits small enough, that it might be better to have a norm that disallows them, for the sake of being a cleaner rule. Or maybe it should be okay to make arguments so long as you explicitly cancel any implicature that you’re asking people to upvote? Confused about what’s best here.
I think this method of “promoting a post” should be discouraged in the EA community.
The community’s attention is a limited resource. Gaining more upvotes in an “artificial” way is roughly a zero-sum game with other writers on this forum and it adds noise to the useful signal that the karma score provides. It also seems counterproductive in terms of fostering good coordination norms within the community.
I agree. But I think it should be okay to present arguments for why the post might get fewer upvotes than it deserves.
As a clarification: I don’t think “here are some good effects that would come out of getting lots of upvotes” would count as such an argument.
I am now feeling like the legitimate use cases for such arguments might be narrow enough, and their benefits small enough, that it might be better to have a norm that disallows them, for the sake of being a cleaner rule. Or maybe it should be okay to make arguments so long as you explicitly cancel any implicature that you’re asking people to upvote? Confused about what’s best here.