On 7/3/2020 4:32 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > - The ability to take away others' karma is removed. I didn't want to do > this, > since I think the 'balanced karma' system is a quite interesting mechanic. > But for karma transfers to feel cheap, I think you have to be able to > perform > them without penalizing someone else, at least sometimes.
After thinking on this a little overnight, I don't think it's good to remove negative karma. I *do* think it's a good idea to go away from zero sum though. It's true that large % of the time I want to give positive karma and feel bad for having to find a zero-sum negative. But there's a small percentage of the time when it's useful to be able to apply a social negative feedback that's "real" (e.g. it is recorded against someone so it is "heard") but isn't gamified (doesn't stop a person from winning or voting or anything). Without that relief valve I think we'll be more quick to point fingers/blot and get annoyed, because there won't be any other relief valve. And finger-pointing is really an escalation. It's not "I've made my minor point of disapproval and we can move on now"; fingerpointing suggests that the person has to defend themselves rather than saying "you're right my bad" and letting it pass. Also, karma should decay for everyone, much faster than it is. Sometimes people end up down at say -4 when they make a single ill-advised move and several people get annoyed. Fine, ding them and it's deserved - but when they're still at -4 six months later that's a problem, it lends itself to "no one will let me forget that so who cares if I'm down here" attitude. -G.
