There was a psychological study that decided that community moderation tends to be self healing if, and only if, punishing others for a perceived infraction comes at a cost to the punisher.
I believe I have the timeline right that this study happened not too long before StackOverflow got the idea that getting upvoted gives you ten points and downvoting someone costs you two. As long as you’re saying something useful occasionally instead of disagreeing with everyone else, your karma continues to rise.
While interesting, this seems entirely tangential to the conversation to me. I’m not seeing the connection between paying for the right to participate and punishment. What am I missing?
If there’s no system to refute the uniqueness of a handful of identities (sock puppets used for griefing) then the system won’t scale. If anyone can issue a “takedown” for free, the system of moderation won’t scale.
Comments
One person per domain is essentially proof of $10.
There was a psychological study that decided that community moderation tends to be self healing if, and only if, punishing others for a perceived infraction comes at a cost to the punisher.
I believe I have the timeline right that this study happened not too long before StackOverflow got the idea that getting upvoted gives you ten points and downvoting someone costs you two. As long as you’re saying something useful occasionally instead of disagreeing with everyone else, your karma continues to rise.
While interesting, this seems entirely tangential to the conversation to me. I’m not seeing the connection between paying for the right to participate and punishment. What am I missing?
If there’s no system to refute the uniqueness of a handful of identities (sock puppets used for griefing) then the system won’t scale. If anyone can issue a “takedown” for free, the system of moderation won’t scale.