Note: I didn’t have the time to write this up in as detailed/compelling a fashion as I would have liked, but erred on the side of submitting it. 

I think that strong votes should be removed from the EA Forum, or at least lowered in strength. I believe that the negatives of the current system outweigh its benefits, and that it would be beneficial for community health to change the current system.

As far as I can tell, strong votes are 4x stronger than regular votes for at least some users (it appears to vary, but this was difficult to pin down; I couldn't find clear information on how votes are weighed on the Forum, which was itself frustrating). Ultimately, this serves to amplify the power of people who express their opinions more strongly and to diminish the power of those who use the strong vote more sparingly. There are not any obvious guidelines for when it is appropriate to use strong vs. regular votes, although there may well be ones listed in the Forum guidelines; nonetheless, I think it’s safe to say that most forum users have not encountered a standard guide for when strong votes are appropriate. In the absence of such guidance, people use their own intuitions/judgements. 

As with so many things, people’s intuitions vary! I think there’s a solid analogy here of a bunch of people chatting at a get-together. People are assessing whether they want to speak up, and how strongly they want to frame their arguments if so. In my experience, some people are naturally much more forceful about how they frame their arguments, or are calibrated differently about how strongly they put things. Sometimes (not always!) this is shaped by their race/gender/class/other aspects of their identity. I personally (a woman) have come to realize that I am more tentative in sharing my opinions than many of my male friends, or express a comparably-certain opinion with a lower level of forcefulness.

What sort of community norms exist shape to what extent certain people’s voices end up dominating the conversation. Again, at some get togethers there may be implicit norms that it’s rude to interrupt, while at others there may be a sense that it indicates strength of conviction if you’re expressing your views forcefully and often. 

Given that we’re operating from behind a screen, choices about when to strong vote are made based on diffuse, rarely discussed judgements, which I think makes it more likely that it’s based on gut intuitions than well-considered, widely-shared norms. And in turn, I think gut intuition differences mean that in practice, some people are strong upvoting everything that they themselves post/comment, while others are never doing so because it feels impolite. Some people are likely strong upvoting everything by their friends/colleagues, while others may abstain from doing so because it’s unfair. At the end of the day, that means that some people end up having more voting power in practice than others, solely based on their intuitions.

One or two strong upvotes can make a big difference in where a comment or post ranks. And because of the momentum associated with upvotes, the effects of small initial differences (do you strong upvote your own post?) can have exponential effects. 

It also creates weird effects with co-authored posts. I coauthored a post and it automatically strong upvoted it from both of us, meaning that it started with, if I recall correctly, 8 or 9 upvotes. That meant that it ranked far higher than other posts at the same time.

I suspect it also heightens things on contentious topics. When people are more emotional, they’re likely more likely to use strong votes.

Additionally, many people have been recently discussing the importance of maintaining space for a diversity of beliefs within EA discourse. Strong votes make it easier for dissenting voices to be effectively shut out, if it only takes one or two strong votes to severely knock down a comment or vote. 

There are some benefits to the system. It lets people express their preferences in a more granular fashion, and undoubtably helps some “really great” posts get more traction vs. “decent” posts. But I believe that a system with evenly valued votes would do that as well, with the strongest posts receiving upvotes from more people. 

In my opinion, strong votes should be eliminated. But I’m not familiar with the nuances of this issue, and it seems like there are other alternatives that could also be workable. Strong votes could also be halved in strength, such that they’re worth only double regular votes rather than quadruple. Alternatively, clearer norms could be created/disseminated about when strong votes are appropriate to use.