= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pfft comments on The Nature of Offense - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (173)
To not raise the status of the pointer-outer, we could require that the pointing out is done anonymously.
To make it formal, it might be useful to make it part of the UI: rather than posting a reply in free text, you would click a "bad language" button and mark a checkbox for the policy you consider violated. Reducing the bandwidth of the channel in this way might make it harder to communicate elaborate moves in a social-status game using it.
Not lowering the status of the pointed-out speaker seems harder: one could make the whole exchange not publicly visible, but would a private message be sufficient to enforce the guidelines, especially since there might be disagreement about what constitutes a violation?
It seems that if you buy this policy, no UI change would be necessary. Just a policy of sending PMs rather than making it public would suffice.
I would generalize, as follows:
Allow anonymous posting, with a checkbox. Not really anonymous, you have to be logged in, but non-mods don't see ID.
Anonymous posts don't display until a mod explicitly permits them.
Special rules for anonymous posts: be very polite, be very on-topic or validly critical of another poster's delivery. Posts without extra effort to politeness beyond the norm will be summarily junked.
Result: this gives us criticism with no status modification, it also gives us posts with on-topic views which a poster might have good reason to disown in public, but still consider true.