In every case, the behavior that is encouraged is one that benefits the reader rather than the writer. I think this is a good thing.
1-3: Comments that few people ever read are inherently less valuable to the vitality of the site than comments that many people read.
4: If people are encouraged to pick their battles rather than voicing their opinion any time they have a comment box in front of them, so much the better. It means less time wasted with the same stale arguments, and perhaps fewer one-sided submissions.
I concede that this relies on the fragile notion that people will be willing to acknowledge (by voting) when a comment they disagree with has merit, but I suspect this would be easier if people had more experience with higher-quality disagreement--say a 4, 5, or 6 on pg's hierarchy.
5: If a submission and thread was worth commenting in at all, it is presumably interesting enough to deserve the up voting. Not a problem.
If people are discouraged from commenting on threads that they themselves do not find worth voting up, that's a good thing.
If a significant number of people start commenting on and voting up stories that they themselves don't find interesting--well, at that point I'd start fearing for the survival of the human race.
6-7: Well, duh.
8: See 1-3. Long 1-on-1 discussions can be valuable to the individuals involved, but they don't provide much benefit to the site as a whole.
Think about it this way: all you need to do to maintain a 3 point average is to write comments that at least two people find interesting. Just two people. All that the orange name signifies is that on average your comments are interesting to more than one other person on the site. I think that's worth rewarding.
1-3: Comments that few people ever read are inherently less valuable to the vitality of the site than comments that many people read.
4: If people are encouraged to pick their battles rather than voicing their opinion any time they have a comment box in front of them, so much the better. It means less time wasted with the same stale arguments, and perhaps fewer one-sided submissions.
I concede that this relies on the fragile notion that people will be willing to acknowledge (by voting) when a comment they disagree with has merit, but I suspect this would be easier if people had more experience with higher-quality disagreement--say a 4, 5, or 6 on pg's hierarchy.
5: If a submission and thread was worth commenting in at all, it is presumably interesting enough to deserve the up voting. Not a problem.
If people are discouraged from commenting on threads that they themselves do not find worth voting up, that's a good thing.
If a significant number of people start commenting on and voting up stories that they themselves don't find interesting--well, at that point I'd start fearing for the survival of the human race.
6-7: Well, duh.
8: See 1-3. Long 1-on-1 discussions can be valuable to the individuals involved, but they don't provide much benefit to the site as a whole.
Think about it this way: all you need to do to maintain a 3 point average is to write comments that at least two people find interesting. Just two people. All that the orange name signifies is that on average your comments are interesting to more than one other person on the site. I think that's worth rewarding.