No. Not good. It damages the signal to noise ratio.
Good!
While you do sometimes have interesting ideas, you are not bright enough, informed enough, or a careful enough thinker that we gain much from a not highly censored stream of your thoughts.
Yes I am. I'm fucking Will_Newsome, brah.
For the rest of your reply, the fact that people can't do something perfectly doesn't mean they can't do a useful approximation
It's not that simple. There's a threshold. They don't meet the threshold.
it doesn't mean I should interfere with attempts to get the best estimates they can
It means you should ignore them, and optimize for the people that matter. For the people that matter: increase, or decrease credibility? Note that for the people that matter, what you do mostly doesn't matter. You have to focus on edge cases.
If my ideas are generally good, then they will pay attention and that's a good thing.
I disagree.
If my ideas are not worthwhile then people will stop paying attention and that's a good thing then also.
I agree.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Don't worry, there won't be future posts like this, so you don't have to delete my LessWrong account, and anyway I could make another, and another.
But since you've dared to read this far:
Credibility. Should you maximize it, or minimize it? Have I made an error?
Discuss.
Don't be shallow, don't just consider the obvious points. Consider that I've thought about this for many, many hours, and that you don't have any privileged information. Whence our disagreement, if one exists?