My comment was tongue in cheek, just a joke. I'm not planning to curse out Eliezer anytime soon. It was enjoyable from my perspective to imagine a stream of hundreds of downvotes flooding my comment and making this profile unusable.

Of course, you said "imagine that ". And so my reply is that your imagination produced flawed counterfactual predictions of the response and so conveys an incorrect picture of the actual world prior to the counterfactual modification.

I also believe that he's probably criticized less often by in-group members than other in-group members are.

That would be something I might predict based on general understanding of how social groups work prior to exposure to the actual data stream of less wrong comments. However my actual observations tell me otherwise and so I would happily bet against you were such a thing to be measured. Eliezer is criticized more often than the median in-group member (for most reasonable interpretations of 'criticism' and 'in group member').

I intend no particular presumption by this so more by way of information: I am one of the most active participants here and suspect I pay a more than typical amount of attention to what is being criticizer by who, how such criticism is received and how the interplay of social dynamics and status (seems to) influence which criticisms can be (or are) given when and to whom. Mere criticism volume is a comparatively simple thing to keep an account of. This gives me enough confidence in how often Eliezer is criticized that I would consider the opportunity to bet at even odds that he is criticized more often than the median in-group member. In fact I would even be willing to strengthen my claim to refer to "criticism relative to contribution volume".