Author Topic: Renaming karma  (Read 10781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 19, 2012, 01:53:22 AM
Reply #15

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
I have said many times that I do not like this Kama system because in my opinion it encourages elitism and segregation. Basic management 101 no, no! It ultimately leads to rule by cronyism rather than ability.

Faijer puts a valid point forward in #12:

So, before we decide that the system is being abused, let's first decide (since we can't determine) how the system is used.

But he is mistaken that it cannot be determined? Or at the very least an indication of how it is used can be put forward.

I received this by PM on 27th September 2011:

Yo,

I just thought I'd apologize for something. You mentioned your karma dropping at a steady rate; well... a lot of that was me. I think I Smote you about five or six times over a period of a week or two, all told. Why? Because I saw you had a huge amount of karma, and I had often disagreed with you in the past; so I was angered that someone I disagreed with was, apparently, the most admired person on the site!

But that's really petty, and I regret doing it. I'm voting you up now whenever I can. So yeah... my apologies.  I just don't want you thinking that everyone is voting you down now (although I stopped quite a while ago, so if it's still happening, now it's not me!).

Take care,


After I replied I got this:

Quote from: Searcher on September 28, 2011, 01:04:27 AM
I thank you for your honesty. I also think that my karma was atificially high perhaps for the oppersite reasons to you. I think it is well known that I am not a lover of this system and interestingly it started dropping when I started the accasional post outside the majic forum. Others may have had the same feelings and responded like you. I enjoy working out the political motives of people and how this effects their surroundings. In my defence I do know that I am often confused with 'searching' and I do not know if this as an effect - quite posibly yes! but which way?

Again thank you for your honesty. Even accepting the impersonal effect of the internet it took guts

R
Searcher

Thanks for your kind reply.  It's very heartening to know that someone understands and forgives. I wouldn't have blamed you if you had been angry, but it would have been a little upsetting all the same!

I used to confuse you with Searching a bit myself, haha. "Why did Searching change his name...?" I like Searching, though, so you might have gotten a few upvotes from it! 

This can be validated by the tech team!


So this person was using the karma system to disagree with belief and as a popularity metre.

In itself it cannot be presented as ultimate proof of abuse but can be accepted as a strong indication towards it. IMHO Elitism is prevalent within this community on a number of levels, for those out side of this we either accept it as standard or leave.

Faijer, I remember you once intimating that only one negative is required to cast a negative on the remainder. Given the above would you be willing to reconsider your stance. :P
We can look but do we see and we can listen but do we hear? So what gets in the way?
👂u have to say because I don't do hints👂

April 19, 2012, 06:31:00 AM
Reply #16

Faijer

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Existential Pragmatist

  • 3201
  • Karma:
    40
  • Personal Text
    The Devil's Advocate
    • View Profile
    • WordPress Blog
Quote from: Akenu
people with negative karma usually care, reason? People ARE social creatures.
This is certainly a reason they might care, but not a reason that they do care. Again, provide evidence, not assumptions. If you want me to believe what you're saying, don't just expect me to believe it because you do.

Quote from: Akenu
If you are right, history will repeat.
Not necessarily.

And therefore,
Quote from: Akenu
If I am right, history won't repeat and results will actually be fascinating.
Not necessarily.

Quote from: Akenu
Problem I see with Karma is the feature to vote more than once for each member, try to imagine a voting system where you can vote political party as many times as you wish, you just need to wait in the queue, again. Not everyone does have time or guts for such behavior which creates unfair conditions.
This is not too dissimilar from how democracy currently works. Everybody has a vote, but only those who care about what happens will use it. With the ability to vote more than once (with or without a waiting period) those who are the most invested and passionate about their views will be the ones to wait around to press the button again.

There will always be people who abuse the system. In your suggestion, they could still go around voting down everyone who opposes their views without reasoned consideration. They could still gather together a cartel to increase the effectiveness. Hell, if they really wanted to be able to push the smite button a dozen times, they could simply set up a dozen accounts with a dozen email addresses.

Ultimately, if they want to abuse the system that much, they will find a way.

Quote from: Akenu
Only problem I see with that is why I am solving this technical suggestion, apparently related to the CMS systems and therefore to system's administrators, with people that apparently are not administering this system, who apparently does NOT even know how such system works?
You really do make a lot of assumptions.

Quote from: Searcher
In itself it cannot be presented as ultimate proof of abuse but can be accepted as a strong indication towards it.

Faijer, I remember you once intimating that only one negative is required to cast a negative on the remainder. Given the above would you be willing to reconsider your stance.
I'm not sure what you mean by one negative required to cast a negative on the remainder, and I'm not sure where I may have intimated this.

Regardless, witness testimony and admissions of guilt by themselves are not sufficient evidence in my books. People can lie. He could have voted 20 times, or he could be taking the rap for a cartel. Statistical data is needed to back this up, and only then would I reconsider 'my stance' (which isn't that I don't believe people abuse, simply one of compulsive scepticism).

*awaits Kobok swooping in to present data*
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 06:39:37 AM by Faijer »
My WordPress Blog is updated regularly.
NEW UPDATE: Life begins at conception: A thought experiment (29/08/2012)

April 19, 2012, 08:05:33 AM
Reply #17

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
Your not related to Neville Chamberlain by any chance are you Faijer :) :wink:
We can look but do we see and we can listen but do we hear? So what gets in the way?
👂u have to say because I don't do hints👂

April 19, 2012, 08:42:34 AM
Reply #18

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Quote from: Akenu
If I am right, history won't repeat and results will actually be fascinating.
Not necessarily.

Clearing the slate does not mean history will not be repeated.

Quote from: Akenu
Problem I see with Karma is the feature to vote more than once for each member, try to imagine a voting system where you can vote political party as many times as you wish, you just need to wait in the queue, again. Not everyone does have time or guts for such behavior which creates unfair conditions.
This is not too dissimilar from how democracy currently works. Everybody has a vote, but only those who care about what happens will use it. With the ability to vote more than once (with or without a waiting period) those who are the most invested and passionate about their views will be the ones to wait around to press the button again.
[/quote]

Which won't be possible if there is just one vote for each member. (that of course can be changed over-time <= solved by design).
On the light note: I don't know how it works in your country, but if half of population of my country doesn't go to vote, results are not legitimate.


Quote
There will always be people who abuse the system. In your suggestion, they could still go around voting down everyone who opposes their views without reasoned consideration. They could still gather together a cartel to increase the effectiveness. Hell, if they really wanted to be able to push the smite button a dozen times, they could simply set up a dozen accounts with a dozen email addresses.

Mmmm, let me see:
1) setting up a dozen accounts is forbidden by rules on Veritas
2) Saying that people can make organized groups for such behavior does not render the solution ineffective.

It's the same like saying that using password is pointless because someone will eventually get in.

Quote
Ultimately, if they want to abuse the system that much, they will find a way.

True enough. Publish your password, if someone will really want to hack your account, he will succeed anyway.

Quote
Quote from: Akenu
Only problem I see with that is why I am solving this technical suggestion, apparently related to the CMS systems and therefore to system's administrators, with people that apparently are not administering this system, who apparently does NOT even know how such system works?
You really do make a lot of assumptions.

We both do. I guess I have already explained the origin of my assumptions, didn't I?

April 19, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
Reply #19

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 315
  • Karma:
    78
  • Personal Text
    Become.
    • View Profile
Quote
Quote from: Akenu
Problem I see with Karma is the feature to vote more than once for each member, try to imagine a voting system where you can vote political party as many times as you wish, you just need to wait in the queue, again. Not everyone does have time or guts for such behavior which creates unfair conditions.
This is not too dissimilar from how democracy currently works. Everybody has a vote, but only those who care about what happens will use it. With the ability to vote more than once (with or without a waiting period) those who are the most invested and passionate about their views will be the ones to wait around to press the button again.


Which won't be possible if there is just one vote for each member. (that of course can be changed over-time <= solved by design).
On the light note: I don't know how it works in your country, but if half of population of my country doesn't go to vote, results are not legitimate.
I think you're missing the point here. Faijer seems to be saying that, regardless of how the system is operated, it is run and kept alive by those who care for its continued existence and well-being. This could very well be an assumption, but it IS a logical one based off of already observable results. Even if everyone was only allowed to smite or applaud somebody only once, the ratio of their karma would still be very similar. (Example: Let's say for the sake of argument, that only ten or so people have smote Aunt Clair, around six or seven times each; this would bring us to around her current karma score. As is clearly evident, the ratio of people who care to smite her is more than those who care to applaud her. Whether it's only a few people who continuously smite her or it is many, it hardly matters, because the same can be done with applauds by the people who enjoy her posts. This means that even if everybody's vote was decreased to just one, her down-votes would still outnumber her up-votes in all likelihood. Whether her karma is -100 or -10, it's still negative, and it still shows the society's general opinion of her. I fail to see how changing the amount of votes people can cast would change this. I highly doubt very many people abuse the karma system, and even if some do, it still indicates that the member they are smiting over and over again should change the way they behave on the forum, and theoretically people with negative karma would still have negative karma even with your solution.
Quote
There will always be people who abuse the system. In your suggestion, they could still go around voting down everyone who opposes their views without reasoned consideration. They could still gather together a cartel to increase the effectiveness. Hell, if they really wanted to be able to push the smite button a dozen times, they could simply set up a dozen accounts with a dozen email addresses.
Quote
Mmmm, let me see:
1) setting up a dozen accounts is forbidden by rules on Veritas
2) Saying that people can make organized groups for such behavior does not render the solution ineffective.

It's the same like saying that using password is pointless because someone will eventually get in.

Again, you're sort of ignoring the core of Faijer's argument. There will always be a way to abuse even the most airtight system. If people really want to abuse the karma system, they will do it. The good thing is that most members here seem to be responsible, so it's statistically irrelevant whether a few people are jackasses or not.

In direct response to your numbered comments:
1) Something being against the rules has never completely stopped it from happening.
2) Uh... If people did behave as Faijer proposed, it WOULD render your solution ineffective. I think that's why he proposed it in the first place.
Quote
Only problem I see with that is why I am solving this technical suggestion, apparently related to the CMS systems and therefore to system's administrators, with people that apparently are not administering this system, who apparently does NOT even know how such system works?
You really do make a lot of assumptions.

We both do. I guess I have already explained the origin of my assumptions, didn't I?

The difference being, Faijer's assumptions, of which there are few, are almost always based off of observable evidence, or founded firmly in logic. Yours seem to... not be.  :P

If your threads so far have convinced almost nobody that the karma system sucks, then it probably does not suck.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2012, 12:42:25 PM by Impervious »
(18:23) (@kobok) They taught me about that moth in college.
(01:06) (@kobok) (⊙ ‿ ⊙)

April 19, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
Reply #20

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Impervious: And how did it happen that my assumptions are not logical and observable?
For example regarding not understanding the CMS system: Someone in THIS thread said something about rebuilding the whole system, this is mere a configuration of ONE module. I myself haven't worked with SMF, but I did work with Drupal, with Joomla, with PHPRS and I have programmed a countless of CMS systems on my own (depending how much money a customer wanted to put into the project).

@Pulse of Awakening: Your current Karma is 9, my current Karma is 16. Does that mean that my posts are overall of higher quality than yours? I don't think so. You are also member of Veritas for longer time so being it from old friendship is not the case, either. It can't be about respect, either, I tend to argue with everyone.

Now, as I see that logical reasoning goes nowhere, let me be a bit vulgar now (just in this post).
When I agree with someone, I will tell him, when I disagree with someone, I will tell him together with reasons why I think so. I don't need some homosexual applaud/smite buttons to agree/disagree with someone, I have balls to do so in my name and take a responsibility for my actions.

April 19, 2012, 01:46:09 PM
Reply #21

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
One of the problems Impervious is that where one sees black another sees white or to put it another way ‘one mans meat is an others mans poison’. Unfortunately there is no way of getting around this and many will line with how they see it based on their own form of bias while the odd few will see it as it is.

Here ‘s a list of why some vote (not exclusive)

Good or bad post :wink:
For or against belief :confused:
Like or dislike of person :mad:
To be part or separate from the ruling party :eek:

Hand on heart which one fits you and as it always been this way? And please Impervious if you do not understand probabilities and statistics it is better not to try and use the language  :-X because you cannot draw an opinion and then call it statistically irrelevant if others do not!

So far the only irrefutable fact is that some one as admitted to using the karma system as a personality tool but that persons integrity as been questioned although no one except me knows who it is? Oh and the person who wrote it! Interesting point of fact is that this was written before this thread not during or after. :headwall:

Cross referencing against IP addressing is now a common practice so to circumvent, the abuser must have separate IP addresses to be able to become a multiple member of a community, I do believe Kobok as this checking facility.

The management of politics is fascinating, don’t you just love predicting who does what to whom and when  :biggrin:
We can look but do we see and we can listen but do we hear? So what gets in the way?
👂u have to say because I don't do hints👂

April 19, 2012, 02:18:54 PM
Reply #22

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 315
  • Karma:
    78
  • Personal Text
    Become.
    • View Profile
@Akenu: Sorry, saying your assumptions seem illogical came across as sounding assy.  :P What I mean is that Faijer is drawing from other voting situations that happen across a large population, whereas you are taking a relatively small sampling of the population at Veritas and deciding that the whole karma system is bad based off of the irresponsible ones. Also, what one member says regarding the CMS system doesn't really matter unless he or she is the one doing the programming. I haven't seen a post on this thread from somebody on the tech team, so making an assumption regarding the competency of the programmers on this site based on the misunderstanding of one member who doesn't even run the site seems a little bit illogical.

@Searcher: Yeah, that would be the point of a democracy; to get everybody's input across. In this thread I've already stated that the karma system reflects the general feelings of members here at Veritas. This is how any democratic process works. The majority make the decisions, but each individual has a chance to make their own opinion known and try to persuade others to their line of thinking. It is a good thing that not everybody sees things the exact same on this forum.
Quote
Here ‘s a list of why some vote (not exclusive)

Good or bad post
For or against belief
Like or dislike of person
To be part or separate from the ruling party

Hand on heart which one fits you and as it always been this way? And please Impervious if you do not understand probabilities and statistics it is better not to try and use the language   because you cannot draw an opinion and then call it statistically irrelevant if others do not!

I already said I applaud or smite people based on the quality of their posts. If a post has good information, good logic, and can help a good deal of the members on this site, I will typically applaud the poster. If a post only contains one or two of those things, or is at the least not harmful, I will neither applaud nor smite the poster. If a post is completely illogical, supplies bad information, seems completely off-topic, or is just plain awful, I will smite the poster. (By the way, I don't even know if I have smitten anybody yet; I also don't applaud too often. I don't see how you directly questioning me on this subject is very relevant).

Also, I don't understand why you are saying I have no experience with probabilities or statistics. I claimed that the majority of posters on this forum seem to be responsible people, so the irresponsible people who smite people (frequently) based on something simply disliking a poster are the minority. This means that over time, the responsible posters are the one's who decide an individual's net karma score. This would render the minority's opinion irrelevant. Please tell me how that is an erroneous statement.
Quote
Cross referencing against IP addressing is now a common practice so to circumvent, the abuser must have separate IP addresses to be able to become a multiple member of a community, I do believe Kobok as this checking facility.
I'm sure this is true, but even if it is, it does not eliminate the possibility of somebody making a whole slew of accounts when no moderators are present, posting a bunch of spam so that they have permission to vote, and 'assaulting' somebody with smites or applauds. I'm not saying things like this happen, but I am saying it is possible to circumvent this system, as it is with any other.
(18:23) (@kobok) They taught me about that moth in college.
(01:06) (@kobok) (⊙ ‿ ⊙)

April 19, 2012, 07:57:30 PM
Reply #23

Constructman

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 303
  • Karma:
    9
  • Personal Text
    Nothing to read here
    • View Profile
Third problem of having Karma: When having argument with other member, any other message showing different opinion or just different point of view will be taken as personal attack and counter-attack will be the smite.
My Karma going down didn't happen at once and I believe at least one of these was executed by Enchia, I argumented with him in the Ten asnwers about God, thread.

Aye

April 19, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
Reply #24

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Impervious: Then I will specify it once again: I am not saying everyone abuses the system, I just say that thanks to the Karma's functionality the possibility of abuse is high, once again this doesn't mean that you, Pulse or Faijer ever abused Karma in the way as described above.

April 19, 2012, 11:35:40 PM
Reply #25

Ekstatikos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 411
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    "It was ME! I was the turkey all along...!"
    • View Profile
@Pulse of Awakening: Your current Karma is 9, my current Karma is 16. Does that mean that my posts are overall of higher quality than yours? I don't think so. You are also member of Veritas for longer time so being it from old friendship is not the case, either. It can't be about respect, either, I tend to argue with everyone.

Oh hey sorry I'm only responding to this now Akenu, I kinda stopped reading this thread since it's become moot, until a council member responds or something at least.

I didn't post on Veritas at all for about a year. As is clear by your number of posts, you are a very active member. So it is only natural that you have been able to accumulate a higher karma rating. And that is fine, since active and frequent posting, if of a generally beneficial nature to the community, should likewise be rewarded. However, without the karma system, we ONLY have a view of quantity of posts. With the karma, we are given some generalized indication of quality as well. So between those two and our own judgement, we can determine the relative likelihood of someone's info being legit or bollocks.

~ Io Daimon Eriounes Theon ~

"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much!" ~ Aleister Crowley, Liber AL vel Legis

To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent, and To Liberate

April 20, 2012, 01:46:17 AM
Reply #26

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@The Pulse of Awakening: Well, I am waiting to soem council member, too...
You said it can be related to the frequency of posting, which is true, or at least part of the true. Some data are related to the most recent posts, some to older posts, some simply to posters or some relationships among members. It means we make a sum of apples and potatoes to get some result, but the result itself is of unknown unit.

If we omit this, we still have one problem. Does karma 10 mean that 10 people applauded or that 100 people pushed the applaud button and 90 people pushed the smite button? Difference between these two events is enormous.

I am irritated by this because I can see something similar in our company, too. Our company uses a reporting utility that sums test cases, test steps, test runs and test sets together to get some big numbers. These numbers make nice charts, but their statistical value is 0, random number generator could make same charts and with same statistical value.

April 20, 2012, 01:54:33 AM
Reply #27

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
@Searcher:
Also, I don't understand why you are saying I have no experience with probabilities or statistics. I claimed that the majority of posters on this forum seem to be responsible people, so the irresponsible people who smite people (frequently) based on something simply disliking a poster are the minority. This means that over time, the responsible posters are the one's who decide an individual's net karma score. This would render the minority's opinion irrelevant. Please tell me how that is an erroneous statement.

Because it is based on an assumption. You are assuming that responsible posters vote and that responsible posters out weigh none responsible voters. And a persons definition of responsible and none responsible will be biased towards their own bias or ambitions.

To quote as an example:

“Why? Because I saw you had a huge amount of karma, and I had often disagreed with you in the past; so I was angered that someone I disagreed with was, apparently, the most admired person on the site!”

Where I agree with Akenu is if it is based on the post and not the individual then TPoA’s statements in #25 about being sure of quality of posts would be better and more transparent.

Lets take two posters one as a karma of -60 and the other +60, this shows the direction and focus of the group or quango as well as like or dislike of the individual, it does not show the quality of their current post! To use TPoA’s language the post by the -60 may be legit and valuable where the +60 persons post may be bollocks but how many will follow the +60 person because they have the +60 tag?
We can look but do we see and we can listen but do we hear? So what gets in the way?
👂u have to say because I don't do hints👂

April 20, 2012, 02:20:01 AM
Reply #28

Ekstatikos

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 411
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    "It was ME! I was the turkey all along...!"
    • View Profile
To use TPoA’s language the post by the -60 may be legit and valuable where the +60 persons post may be bollocks but how many will follow the +60 person because they have the +60 tag?


Please call me Pulse  :cool:

When the numbers are that high (and in this karma system it seems anything above 30 can be considered high) then it's a pretty clear indication that someone has either been doing something consistently right or consistently wrong. The key here is that, and I think people understand this, it is a generalization. For example, Aunt Clair, who has over 60 negative karma at the moment, recently made a post that I rather enjoyed. But generally I do only skim over her posts. On the other hand, Kobok has a huge positive karma rating, and whilst this does not mean he is infallible, it is a clear and accurate indication of the general quality of his information. In the same breath, I am not a psion, and so I don't really read psion related posts, no matter how high the author's karma rating is.

Having a high karma rating does not make you unchallengeable, nor does having a low one make you an imbecile. Your karma rating does not make you anything. It simply provides a simple additional measure to assist readers in determining the accuracy of information on a forum where accuracy of information is a very important credential. I am trying to illustrate that your own personal discretion is an integral part of how useful the tool that is the karma rating is going to be for you.

This thread seems overly belaboured, so I will decline from replying to it again.

Love, Light, Liberty, Peace & Truth,
- Pulse
~ Io Daimon Eriounes Theon ~

"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much!" ~ Aleister Crowley, Liber AL vel Legis

To Know, To Dare, To Will, To Be Silent, and To Liberate

April 20, 2012, 10:58:37 AM
Reply #29

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
There will always be people who abuse the system. In your suggestion, they could still go around voting down everyone who opposes their views without reasoned consideration. They could still gather together a cartel to increase the effectiveness. Hell, if they really wanted to be able to push the smite button a dozen times, they could simply set up a dozen accounts with a dozen email addresses.

This is a reasonable concern, and that's why it's actively monitored for.  Multiple accounts for karma abuse will likely result in a ban (and I would probably manually revert the karma changes the abusing person made anyway).  I haven't spotted it happening yet.  People seem to be playing by the rules.

Problem I see with Karma is the feature to vote more than once for each member, try to imagine a voting system where you can vote political party as many times as you wish, you just need to wait in the queue, again. Not everyone does have time or guts for such behavior which creates unfair conditions.

I've run numerous analysis scripts on the karma voting.  What you say DOES happen, some times.  There are people who do vindictive votes, and just repeatedly come back for the sole purpose of smiting.  One script that tracked navigation trends leading to karma reported that some people just leave a window open for days or weeks at a time so they can click smite on a person every couple of days.  (I consider this a sign of some significant personality flaws.)  But these things are definitely a small fraction of the karma votes, and it is partially canceled out by others.  The majority of people vote on karma based on a particular post they have just read, mostly just if they find it informative, or sometimes amusing or awesome, or they smite if they find it disinformation, very poorly organized, or disagree very strongly with the concept presented.  And when karma values get near zero, positive or negative, there is a bit more reactive applauding and smiting where people try to nudge a person's karma to the value they think it should be for that person.

Since setting 48 hours to the revote for a particular person, there has been very little of the tracking a person down to vote on that person behavior.  It still happens, and keeps showing up, but it's small enough to not consider it a major contributer to karma values.  So why not yield just one vote of each member for every other member?  Because then karma WOULD be just about members, and whether or not you like them.  It would be, "I am a smiter of you" or "I am an applauder of you", not, "I applaud your post there" and "I smite your post there".  What's more interesting, is that there are lots of combinations that currently happen where people smite a person one day and applaud them another day for a different post.  And in cases of repeat applauds or repeat smites, it is generally on new posts which at least the majority of the time warrant the additional karma point.

Only problem I see with that is why I am solving this technical suggestion, apparently related to the CMS systems and therefore to system's administrators, with people that apparently are not administering this system, who apparently does NOT even know how such system works?

I have been single-handedly configuring and monitoring the karma system, but it has been in consultation with and in response to suggestions from a wide segment of the community, both in private discussions and in threads like this one.  So I consider the broader debate points brought up by people in these threads valid points of consideration.

I won't criticize the rest of the Karma system that was criticized a couple of times before. It IS anti-social and there is no way you can prove the opposite. It DOES affect posts and it DOES affect authors of said posts, authors ARE humans, authors ARE social creatures.

It's SUPPOSED to affect posts and SUPPOSED to affect the authors of said posts.  Karma is a social mechanism for communicating the reaction of the community to the posting trends, style, and content of a user.  The fundamental goal is not to shun, shame, or pedestal-raise anyone, but instead, to AFFECT people, and encourage people to post more productively.

And I think it does that quite well.  While this is subject to a subjective debate, I'd say posting quality has improved notably since we started it.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.