Eugine_Nier comments on Meta: LW Policy: When to prohibit Alice from replying to Bob's arguments? - Less Wrong

-3 Post author: SilasBarta 12 September 2012 03:29AM

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

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 12 September 2012 11:39:55PM *  5 points [-]

There have already been several threads related to this change. Opinion is divided; nearly everyone opposes it, but Eliezer supports it.

Comment author: thomblake 13 September 2012 07:21:39PM 11 points [-]

nearly everyone opposes it, but Eliezer supports it.

I'm not sure which way this bears on the "Lw is just a cult of personality around Eliezer" hypothesis. On the one hand, lots of people opposed Eliezer on something. On the other, we let him get away with this shit and don't just leave.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 September 2012 08:17:08PM 13 points [-]

I'm not sure which way this bears on the "Lw is just a cult of personality around Eliezer" hypothesis. On the one hand, lots of people opposed Eliezer on something. On the other, we let him get away with this shit and don't just leave.

Perhaps LW was originally a personality cult around Eliezer and now it just has Eliezer around as historic legacy that is too hard to get rid of for logistical reasons (like namespace ownership). Kind of like the UK still has a Queen as a head of state.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 14 September 2012 04:23:01AM 5 points [-]

I think it says more about Trike Apps and SI kowtowing to Eliezer than anything.

On reflection, this has made me less inclined to donate to SI than I was before. (I had already been thinking recently that FHI was probably a better organization to donate to for a variety of reasons, ever since I discovered that donations from US citizens to FHI can be tax deductible.)

Comment author: [deleted] 14 September 2012 02:04:21PM 1 point [-]

On the other, we let him get away with this shit and don't just leave.

How would “just leaving” solve anything?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 14 September 2012 03:48:51PM 2 points [-]

Well, there's the obvious answer: this forum exists because people participate in it. If people didn't participate in it, it would cease to exist. If I value its continued existence (either for its own sake, or for the sake of greater rationality in the world, or for the sake of greater fundraising opportunities, or for whatever reason), then a credible threat of non-participation by a significant fraction of active users threatens something I value, and I might therefore be motivated to change my behavior due to such a threat. One way to make such threats more credible is by demonstrating that users will in fact stop participating over behaviors in a specific class.

Comment author: thomblake 17 September 2012 06:04:26PM 0 points [-]

In addition to what TheOtherDave said, forums are cheap, and we could just as well be on a site without a dictator if we felt like it.