2 ms·

I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction. Especially on a system like HN where votes mostly h

by lsc 16y ago

I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction. Especially on a system like HN where votes mostly have emotional value (rather than "your comments never get seen if you have a low carma" like slashdot) I think unreasonable up voting is less bad than unreasonable down voting... unreasonable down voting tends to degrade into unproductive name calling, etc... Note, also, that I do understand the argument for keeping both anonymous, and I'm not saying the current policy should be changed. I'm just saying that if we were to change the current policy, I see some limited upside to making upvotes non anonymous (even though I also see the downsides you point out.) while I see no upside at all to making downvotes non anonymous.

brudgers 16y ago
> I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction Less bad is still bad. That's not an upside.
- lsc 16y ago
  >That's not an upside. right. The upside, from my first post in the thread: "Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy way to say "I think you have an interesting point, even if I disagree with you.")" Now, maybe that's not enough of an upside to counter the badness of reciprocal voting, but it is still an upside.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. If you perceive that the intent of upvotes and downvotes is something other than improving the quality of posts (for example similar to Facebook's "Like"), and if you are able to discount reciprocity then I can see where your coming from.
    - lsc 16y ago
      >The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. That's my primary reason, yes. However, I also believe that if people can see you upvote their posts even while you post a dissenting comment, you will see better conversations for the reasons I outlined in my original post; you are showing you respect the other person and his point, even though you may disagree.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        By ignoring reciprocity in your original post, changing human behavior was left as an exercise for the reader.

by lsc 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago

> I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction Less bad is still bad. That's not an upside.

lsc 16y ago
>That's not an upside. right. The upside, from my first post in the thread: "Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy way to say "I think you have an interesting point, even if I disagree with you.")" Now, maybe that's not enough of an upside to counter the badness of reciprocal voting, but it is still an upside.
- brudgers 16y ago
  The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. If you perceive that the intent of upvotes and downvotes is something other than improving the quality of posts (for example similar to Facebook's "Like"), and if you are able to discount reciprocity then I can see where your coming from.
  - lsc 16y ago
    >The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. That's my primary reason, yes. However, I also believe that if people can see you upvote their posts even while you post a dissenting comment, you will see better conversations for the reasons I outlined in my original post; you are showing you respect the other person and his point, even though you may disagree.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      By ignoring reciprocity in your original post, changing human behavior was left as an exercise for the reader.