Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Unnamed comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 4 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: gjm 07 October 2010 09:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (649)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Unnamed 29 October 2010 09:13:06PM 8 points [-]

I think the policy should be that you do not need to rot13 anything about HMPOR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that "Eliezer said X is true" unless you use rot13.

More specificallly, (and I have to use rot13 here), vg'f svar gb jevgr nobhg Ibyqrzbeg pbagebyyvat Dhveeryy (jvgubhg hfvat ebg13), ohg lbh qb arrq gb hfr ebg13 vs lbh zragvba gur qryrgrq nhgube'f abgr nobhg gung be pynvz gung Jbeq bs Tbq unf rfgnoyvfurq gung D=I.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 October 2010 10:24:06PM 2 points [-]

I affirm that this is what I think the policy should be. Speculation does not require spoilers.

Comment author: Random832 11 April 2012 01:49:00PM 3 points [-]

Downvoted for endorsing a policy that requires people to keep track of whether something is still in the current version of the fic. I didn't know until today that the thing Unnamed put in rot13 had been "disrevealed".

Comment author: wedrifid 13 April 2012 09:35:56AM 1 point [-]

Downvoted for endorsing a policy that requires people to keep track of whether something is still in the current version of the fic. I didn't know until today that the thing Unnamed put in rot13 had been "disrevealed".

I only just discovered what you meant here. I totally agree. Enforcement of 'unrevelation' spoiler policies is utterly absurd and is a norm that I would oppose rather than support.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 April 2012 04:12:04PM 0 points [-]

a policy that requires

The worst that can happen is that you make an error (and possibly fix it). A meaningful question could be, for example, whether the incentives drive the outcome in a wrong direction, or their enforcement is more trouble than it's worth.

Comment author: Random832 11 April 2012 05:49:14PM 4 points [-]

A meaningful question could be, for example, whether the incentives drive the outcome in a wrong direction

Independent of the fact that I believe the desired outcome (less free discussion) is itself a wrong direction, it also encourages EY to be careless with authors notes in the future, due to believing he can "take them back". It also punishes people for honest mistakes.

or their enforcement is more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe 8 karma isn't a lot to you, but it's what I lost just for disagreeing, not even for violating the rule myself. I also think that rot13 is a bad choice, since it requires external programs - implementing a spoiler tag for comments the way there appears to be one in use in some article posts would reduce the burden both to discuss spoilers and to read those discussions. (this is more "compliance is more trouble than it's worth" than "enforcement is more trouble than it's worth", but it's a similar kind of problem.)

I think a likely result is that people either shy away from discussing it at all, or have it as an implicit assumption (to their unrot13ed posts) and are caught in a trap when someone who doesn't know asks what they're talking about. Or we end up with a lot of noise whenever someone who isn't aware of the rule runs into it.

Comment author: Random832 11 April 2012 07:55:32PM *  3 points [-]

I will add, having read some of the thread again with an eye for it, that it is enforced haphazardly. I've seen numerous posts that mention it and have a positive score.

EDIT: Here's a link to my post with a list of such posts

Comment author: wedrifid 13 April 2012 09:42:43AM 0 points [-]

EDIT: Here's a link to my post with a list of such posts

Don't do that. You're just helping the arbitrary punishers find more targets!

Comment author: David_Allen 29 October 2010 09:34:59PM 0 points [-]

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13

I would add: Or if X can be reasonably derived from evidence in MOR and/or canon.