If you really want to reform the Karma system, then getting rid of it isn't really the solution. One system i have seen is where members of higher Karma have more ability to affect other members' karma - i.e. more respected members have more say over the system versus someone with litle or negative karma who might be prone to "spamming" neg karma.
What you are describing here is the very definition of a highly elitist, injust society:
All the means of production as well as the supreme power to define opinions and values lie in the hands of a few ... I suggested that the very existence of the Karma score already favours such a society. If even enforced sytematically by special priviledges (like you suggest) this would be a huge leap right into the problems pointed out in the original post.
Another thing, which i thought was in place but apparently i had a misconception, is the 'reason' part of karma. I've only given out Karma once or twice in my last month or two on the forums, and when i did a message appeared, asking me to submit a reason for giving this karma. I assumed that this would be later approved or denied, so that karma would not be given multiple times for the same reason like a pertinent and well liked thread. Was I wrong about that?
Yes, you were wrong about it.
There is a time-limit in place to send Karma-notifications to the same person but this doesn't restrict you to send that person another notification a certain time later (an hour maybe??), over and over again.
As for the approval or denial of your Karma-distribution, the "reason" you have to enter seems currently just in place to at least force you to explain yourself briefly somehow and to think about your action at least once before you make that click.
However, who is going to actually review all those Karma-distributions?
Scaredgirl, Delreich (and who else on this part?) have much, much better things to do than to carefully examine all those Karma-dealouts all the time. I mean, how many of those are there in an day really ... ?
Karma isn't and cannot realistically be reviewed unless you assign extra staff.
For example, I received Karma-notifications containing the "reason" -> "asshole" twice. This shouldn't happen. Also nobody should waste time on preventing it ... that would just be a stupid and tedious but most of all unnecessary work since better solutions are at hand.
...and I've given out only +karma. I've never given anyone -karma, because to me, -karma is the equivalent of a minor/major infraction or ban, listed in the posting guideline I read a long time ago.
Bravooo ... Your action expresses true humbleness.
However, your feeling about negative Karma somewhat contradicts the rest of your post:
Do you really trust random other people in this forum to judge negatively, whereas you yourself are not worthy to hand out "infractions"? Who are those people worthy to scold while you sense something appalling about it?
to pick one point out of Jangoo's post that I am in favor of: A daily limit on karma giving. 1 karma point per person every 24 (or 12?) hours sounds reasonable to me and I think it would alleviate some of the problems he is addressing, especially with regards to karma spamming. But then I have no idea how common that problem is or whether a daily limit would be irritating to people who actually use the karma system more than once in a blue moon. On all the rest of the debate, well I really don't have an opinion.
Yes, an even stricter limit would alleviate some of those problems, merely, which is why I put them under changes to hopefully make "at least" (5b!).
The fact that this would limit/ "irritate" frequent Karma users would be the whole point of this and it would bring the Karma-system a little step closer towards a just (and democratic) system as which Karma is conceived ... as an example-analogy you could say that no matter how much you are involved in politics, you will still only get one vote every 4 years (US-presidential election) - not even sleeping with the president or spending every day in congress will change this fact.
Funny enough, the exact time-span to set here is highly dependend on a real-life/forum-time balance ... setting it to 1 hour will be much in favour of true forum "reg"ulars, setting it to a day will favour a larger group of still quite active people, setting it to a week may already limit the power of active members (too?) significantly ... as Glitch pointed out above any community of "regulars" will be able to simply promote each other with a system like the current Karma system.
Making a choice here is tough and it may certainly require the regulars to make concessions.
In the end, it is about defining the group that is supposed to be an impactful part of the community concerning the Karma system: A 2pm-8pm-online-schoolkid certainly has much more influence than a 9pm-10pm-after-work-and-dinner-with-family-adult if the system were to be set at 1 hour for example.
I don't like karma. But I don't hate it either.
But I agree that those with negative karma shouldn't be branded as "HEY! I'm unpopular! Disagree with me!". So I propose that every month those with negative karma get "purged". That is, they go back to 0.
I think you just gained my vote for master of time ... being socially caring should be any masters virtue.
Your suggestion sort of corresponds with my suggestion 4.: "That the option to deal out negative Karma is removed."
Does it matter if it is reset after a month, a week ... or instantly, by fully removing the option to "Karma-bash" fellow forum-users?
Edit:
I just received +Karma for a "well thought out thread on Karma".
I admittedly do feel honored ... such as I may feel misunderstood or bristling tomorrow when someone gives me - Karma for this.
Please do not give me Karma of any kind for this thread. That would be kind of paradoxical wouldn't it?
Option 2. for possible changes in the original post is, strangely enough, my favourite one right after option 1.
