One of the beliefs I share with many (though certainly not all) of the regulars on HN is that upmods should be given based on the merit of comment as measured b

One of the beliefs I share with many (though certainly not all) of the regulars on HN is that upmods should be given based on the merit of comment as measured by it contribution to the discussion. That isn't the same thing as whether I agree with the comment, and there are many comments I upmod even though I disagree. So when it comes to PG's beliefs, I'm sure you can appreciate that I might admire Paul The Man and admire one of Paul's essays to the point of forwarding it around, even though I might disagree with it in part or even in whole. Being specific, I see compensation as being one of many different ways we try to game people into doing good things. Some people respond to this carrot, some ignore it and are motivated by other things, and some game the system by lying or cheating their way into getting more carrots, like Mark Hurd slashing HP's R&D budget then pocketing millions for raising their profits. A word like "should" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Should because that is Right with a capital R?" Or does it mean "Should because it is the best way to achieve some larger social goal?" All that being said, may I offer these two statements and ask you if it is possible for someone to be an S-ist and an H-ist? S-ists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit H-ists believe people should be compensated on how productive they are