Alicorn comments on This post is for sacrificing my credibility! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (341)
This is a poll. Is Will Newsome sufficiently noisy (in both senses of the word) that mod intervention is called for? Permalink to karma sink.
It depends what mod intervention consists of. If you mean banning him, I do not think that is called for at this time. If you mean telling him to stop his antics and warning him that he's headed towards a ban if he continues, that sounds like a good idea. Posts (and comments) that are intentionally obscure, made merely for one's own entertainment, or otherwise trollish are not welcome here, and since the community's downvotes and critical comments haven't gotten through to him it would be good to have a mod convey that message.
What do you mean "haven't gotten through to me" in this case? You mean, haven't successfully deterred me? Because clearly I understand them and their significance, and additional measures, like a warning, wouldn't change that fact—it'd just make me more antagonistic.
This poll is BROKEN! Abandon it and do it properly!
The Karma sink comment is brilliant (and harmless fun) but the extra comments on the "Yes" and "No" answers don't just bias perception they outright make the poll unanswerable in the current form.
I would vote for a plain "No." but he is most decidedly not entertaining even when at his trolliest. He is boring, repetitive and banal when at his trolliest. It shouldn't be assumed that people who oppose mod influence believe Will's trolliest crap is entertaining - or vice versa.
I'll agree wtih all of that. I couldn't figure out how to vote in this poll on seeing this comment (and I am not an idiot or a newbie). I don't read Will much and I imagine this little jaunt of his says a lot more about Will than about other parts of the world that I am interested in. I don't KNOW that that is the case, but I don't assign a high enough probability to taking value from figuring it out to go about reading all his posts.
No. He's entertaining even when at his trolliest.
Especially when at his trolliest.
CLARIFICATION: I do not have ACCOUNT DELETION powers. As far as I know, those powers don't exist. I have comment/post banning powers and post editing powers. If I started moderating Will, I would be banning excess downvoted comments, not shooing him away wholesale.
(Thanks for making the clarification. I was very worried.)
I'm in favor of mod intervention lest anyone else waste as much time as I have scratching their head trying to figure out what this thread is about.
Because Will had explicitly threatened to use sockpuppets for various purposes, he could have used them to manipulate the poll, too. Therefore I vote by means of this comment. The vote: ban him. Reasons:
By the way, this is the first time I endorse banning someone from an internet discussion forum.
For what it's worth, I didn't, and I've never done similarly. I have three sockpuppets. One is a joke account I've never used. I made it recently. The other has my identity attached to it already—I've made about five comments with it. And the third is for completely anonymous comments. I rarely use the second or the third, and I never use them for voting.
I also haven't voted on the poll with this account, and I only voted on one comment on this post. In general I just don't vote much, mostly because I forget about the option.
I disagree with a ban.
Which is a reason to treat me nicely—it's not hard to multiply myself by ten. Luckily, I'm the only Will Newsome in the world currently, so I don't think you have much to worry about.
Wouldn't being banned help you with your goal of reducing your credibility?
Yes, and I'm sort of okay with being banned, but I'd like a month's warning. During that month I'd make sure I'd deleted and edited various comments and so on.
But I haven't thought through the question of banning carefully enough, and banning is hard to reverse.
As long as you aren't producing too much noise in the 30-day period, I don't see why the mods wouldn't grant this request. A temporary ban could be another option worth considering.
There might also be a clever software solution. I know Louie who works with the code base. If I write up some Python they might implement it. Something that automatically hides or collapses my contributions for people who haven't voted on my stuff an people who have more downvotes than upvotes. The same code could be used in future similar situations.
Wei Dai's Power Reader script has features along these lines that I find useful during those brief periods when troll-feeding takes over the recent-comments list. Of course, the automatic part is important, admittedly.
For my own part, I don't find your contributions less useful than the median.
Of course anybody with an ounce of self control can simply avoid a thread they don't want to read anymore.
Motley Fool has an "ignore" feature to ignore the posts/comments of a particular user. I actually would not like to see that here. I'd rather have moderation. Even with the ignore feature, you still wind up seeing a lot of stuff related to the stuff you are ignoring as OTHER people quote it and comment on it. Of course Motley Fool boards aren't as tree like as this group. But since this is so tree like, all I need to do is leave a particular discussion and never click on it again, I don't need you or Louie to Python me into not realizing that that is what I am doing.
Yeah, and I wouldn't sockpuppetly cause disruption during such a ban.
I can't decide on a poll option, so here's my opinion: I don't want to see a lot more of Will_Newsome's trolling; I think it damages the site. But just banning him feels like leaving a fascinating mystery unresolved. I want to understand Will's motives, and his insights about simulation, and whatever scary idea he came up with. If there's some way to talk this out in good faith, let's try to do that first. But banning is preferable to endless obfuscated confusion.
Making moderation decisions based on a poll is a horrible idea.
Yes. Please quiet the madness.
Maybe. But moderation isn't a democracy.
Yes, but moderation is about making the site what it should be for a variety of people, not just me and people who are unshy enough to talk to me directly, or just mods. So I want information. I wield the ban button, but I'm not going to use it as a site customization tool for Alicorn in particular.
Might I suggest consulting our benevolent dictator as well?
I would rather see it used as a site customization tool for Alicorn than see it not used in instances like this.
On the other hand dictators and tyrants who do stuff people particularly don't like get killed.
On the gripping hand, as far as I can tell you're not particularly taken with the idea of this moderator poll either. So why the appeal to emotion?