At 03:15 PM 7/12/2005 +0700, Walter van Kalken wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Bennett Haselton wrote:
(c) Indicate that you disagree with the reply if it's a rebuttal. If this happens, then a "jury" of other users on the site will be selected at random to vote on who is right,
One reason that voting is so often avoided in online communities is that it is unclear who is eligible to vote. While one-person-one-vote is a beautiful principle, it is not self-evident who can be counted as "a person". How do you convince your users that the voters aren't just sock puppets, or that they are of a mature enough age to make an informed decision?
Most people do not make informed decisions anyway IMHO. It is all about emotion. Someone can be a great admin never abuse his admin buttons but still be voted out of adminship because people do not like the person. Viceversa also happens.
Yes and this is exactly why the system only allows voting on highly specific questions of fact or logic and not just whether you "like" someone. The theory is that people will vote more honestly on specific questions one at a time, where there's less room for rationalization.
This theory may or may not end up being correct, but that's why I'm encouraging people to sign up and try it out.
-Bennett
bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 497 9002