you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Stoner 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

How?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Shills can disproportionately out vote ideas they are paid to suppress, while impartial voters who haven't been exposed to quality evidence are influenced by the shills.

Deviating from basic voting methods can be exploited by parties who have an interest in seeing the public uninformed.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

And what's stopping them now?

I'm not buying it.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

And what's stopping them now?

Nothing. That's why I've posted 2 PSAs in the last week, and will probably post more, despite being a guilty hypocrite.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I hope you're joking.

I don't think they're really helping.

MHO

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

39 people disagree. Though I see why you say that… I'll tone it down a bit.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't tone it down. Find the right ideas and the right tone.

I've realized a lot of folks just like to debate here. And so often it's a lot of vague subjective opinion crap.

Whatever it is, there's a market for it. Apparently 39 for it. How many against?

Regardless, you do you.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How about this: I'll post what I think is necessary, when I think is necessary, but I'll also get into insanely contrived arguments about whether it's necessary to post something which should limit what I post to only what's actually necessary.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

How is that any different than now?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Touché.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I recsll an oldmanCorley being concerned about exactly this. I'm concerned as well. Most people remain anonymous fire a reason. I

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And...?

What is the reason? And why does it matter or make any difference?

What is your point?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.
The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your logic isn't sound.

What's stopping then is a lack of a down vote.

Okay. Solved.

Weighted voting will be used by shills to Astroturf and maximally up-vote pro shill comments.

I thought it was down votes that were the problem.

The goal is to create the appearance of support for unpopular ideas.

That can be done now. It's not different.

Why should any individual get more voting influence, just because they are passionate about a comment?

It's about quality not quantity. Everyone gets the same 1-10 vote. Everyone gets the opportunity to be passionate or not about all of them.

Yes, the scores will change. A lot. And you will get used to it - like coming from Reddit with no downvote.

And we might see, not just the most popular, but the best of the most popular rise to the top. Maybe.

Or maybe after we all get used to it, the numbers will be different but everything else will be essentially the same.

I really can't see it getting worse. But I can see it getting worse if more people come who aren't high quality - but that's not due to the voting.

How will adding additional voting make the system more resilient?

That's not a proper question.

If I say, "How will adding additional voting NOT make the system more resilient?" - it's the same.

How is resiliency and voting related?

It cannot; it can only make it weaker.

Flawed logic from a flawed question.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

absolutely correct. Especially in gangs.