= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on An account of what I believe to be inconsistent behavior on the part of our editor - 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)
Comments (63)
I don't think this should have been a top-level post either. It clutters up the newsreader and has an extremely wrong tone relative to what I think should be a usual post on this blog.
Suggested future policy: Anyone who wants to start this sort of meta discussion, create a new post "December 2009 Meta Thread" and post your remarks as a comment.
Vote up if you agree. (Do not vote down if you disagree! See below.)
Vote up if you disagree with the above policy. (Do not vote down if you agree!)
As of right now this comment is at -1 points. That doesn't bode well for the effectiveness of this kind of poll.
Note that there is a downvotable Eliezer post below this one.
Actually, now that I think about it, is the problem really that the discussion is too meta? Or is it something else?
EDIT: In fact, rereading the post, I don't even think the tone is all that inappropriate after all. Perhaps I was put off by the title ("uh-oh, here comes another one of these 'look at what a hypocrite Eliezer is' postings...")
Meta-discussion:
A discussion which is interesting because it isn't.
I know that when you have 8000 of it karma is utterly irrelevant. But in the interests of consistency it would be worth following the practice of having another comment which can be voted down for balance. People don't always actually downvote the karma sink but they like having the option to. Without a mechanism to distinguish approval for the principle of having a survey from the supplying of survey data itself the information provided will not even have a chance to approximate being accurate. The people here are the kind who frequent the spin off site of "OvercomingBias".
That would be acceptable.
I voted up- But to clarify my vote: I don't have problem with important meta posts being top-level... I thought some of the gender discussions we had a while back were top-level worthy, for example. A good meta post helps build a community. However, posts about your various flaws and inconsistencies (And I'm sure there are many! :-) I couldn't possibly care less about and I suspect the vast majority of readers feels the same way. Admittedly, implementing a rule like "Criticisms of Eliezer should stay in these threads" might look like you are just trying to quiet dissent so your cult doesn't fall apart. Don't back down. Don't do anything to cause a bunch of people to leave but don't sacrifice good moderation for politics. Those of us who don't give a damn about you one way or the other will appreciate the effort.
(Btw, comments about how Eliezer is the best thing since sliced bread also belong in a monthly meta thread)
[deleted]
I'm not new here. I migrated from Overcoming Bias when Less Wrong first launched.
Ok, and it wasn't a charitable comment anyway so I'm deleting it.
Is there a way to (optionally) escalate Open Thread comments to proper posts once they get enough upvotes, moving all replies over? I voted on the other comment because I dislike the proposed policy, but if that were an option I might support it.
Vote down this comment if you DISAGREE that this would be a useful feature. Do not vote up if you agree!