MaoShan comments on Less Wrong Polls in Comments - Less Wrong

79 Post author: jimrandomh 19 September 2012 04:19PM

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

Comments (302)

Sort By: Leading

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MaoShan 20 September 2012 03:37:24AM *  -2 points [-]

I don't know if it's specifically addressed anywhere in the Terms of Use, but free use of polls can have some very hurtful results; it might be helpful to somewhere post a guide to what type of polls are appropriate and tolerated.

Comment author: Alicorn 20 September 2012 03:43:02AM 9 points [-]

Can you be more specific about what you mean?

Comment author: MaoShan 21 September 2012 02:26:57AM 0 points [-]

See my example poll in answer to wedifrid. Hopefully nobody thinks I was being serious about the poll.

Comment author: Epiphany 20 September 2012 06:47:03AM *  8 points [-]

This is an especially good point because you're currently able to change the question after the results are in, allowing you to prank the poll takers by making their answers seem to support anything you feel like.

Comment author: DaFranker 20 September 2012 08:23:59PM *  2 points [-]

Cue in choice blindness dark arts for Fun and Updates!

(also for evil experiments and control groups, if someone figures those out)

Comment author: wedrifid 20 September 2012 05:35:13AM 7 points [-]

I don't know if it's specifically addressed anywhere in the Terms of Use, but free use of polls can have some very hurtful results; it might be helpful to somewhere post a guide to what type of polls are appropriate and tolerated.

What? About the same as the what you could write in comments already but prettier.

Comment author: radical_negative_one 20 September 2012 06:05:23AM *  2 points [-]

radical_negative_one is a terrible person

Submitting...

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 20 September 2012 05:46:09PM 4 points [-]

The overall total equals the sum of the individual answer totals, in contrast to previous polls.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 September 2012 09:49:08AM 4 points [-]

What? About the same as the what you could write in comments already but prettier.

Comment author: Epiphany 20 September 2012 06:43:49AM *  0 points [-]

Here's one: What if someone takes a poll asking if they should kill themselves? People could write "yes" in the comments, but they can select "yes" in a poll anonymously.

This may lead to more brutal answers to questions. The questions will be limited to whatever the poll creator types in, but that doesn't mean everyone will use common sense while creating their polls.

You may argue "they can already use comments as a polling system using karma" but I would then argue "okay, MaoShan still has a point, and it applies to karma, too."

Also

Comment author: [deleted] 20 September 2012 11:06:18AM *  12 points [-]

Upvote this comment and downvote the karma sink if you think I should not kill myself. :-)

(Edited to add smiley per Poe's law, especially in case someone sees this comment without seeing the parent first.)

Comment author: scav 20 September 2012 08:09:37AM 12 points [-]
  1. Most of the commenters here refrain from being antisocial dicks. There's no reason to believe anonymous polling will change that.

  2. Anyone actually making life-or-death decisions on the basis of an internet forum poll has a non-trivial chance of being selected out of the gene pool for related reasons.

  3. Sometimes you want or can accept brutal answers.

  4. Individual responsibility. You can't legislate for or even concern-troll people into having common sense, even assuming common sense is a well-defined and useful property.

Comment author: Epiphany 20 September 2012 05:14:44PM *  1 point [-]

Another thought: Just because a person asking people on the internet whether they should kill themselves isn't likely to survive in any case, this does not mean that LessWrong wouldn't be sued if said person posted a poll and it resulted in their death. For whatever reason, the US legal system has been known to grant large sums of money to people who are harmed by things that many consider inadvisable or "no-brainers".

Comment author: scav 20 September 2012 08:17:39PM 2 points [-]

And there we depart from the discussion of rationality into the realm of the law. :)

I am pleased to be able to give an immediate unequivocal answer on whether this is likely to be a problem: I have no idea.

Comment author: Epiphany 21 September 2012 03:20:54AM -2 points [-]

lolol I like these points as well. (:

Comment author: TimS 29 November 2012 07:16:12PM 0 points [-]

Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act would probably immunize LW from liability.

Comment author: Epiphany 20 September 2012 08:18:07AM 0 points [-]

Ok good points. I like these.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 September 2012 09:56:09AM *  2 points [-]

Here's one: What if someone takes a poll asking if they should kill themselves?

I suspect people would react against people asking that regardless of whether they include radio buttons. If I recall there has even been drama surrounding making observations about a former member suiciding. I'd be somewhat surprised if someone asking this question directly did not prompt that comment to be banned.

The questions will be limited to whatever the poll creator types in, but that doesn't mean everyone will use common sense while creating their polls.

No, I haven't observed common sense to universally constrain posting behavior in general. However explicit polls don't strike me as sufficiently different or more powerful than regular comments, (inherently anonymous) votes and private messages that a move from informal expectations that people don't behave like @#%$s need be changed to a formal "Terms of Use".

Comment author: [deleted] 20 September 2012 11:05:49AM *  0 points [-]

Upvote this comment and downvote the karma sink if you think I should kill myself. :-)

(Edited to add smiley per Poe's law, especially in case someone sees this comment without seeing the parent first.)

Comment author: fubarobfusco 22 September 2012 07:18:17AM -1 points [-]

Here's one: What if someone takes a poll asking if they should kill themselves?

Then a moderator takes the poll down.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 September 2012 08:08:15AM 2 points [-]

"Don't be an asshole" covers it. If you need a guide to tell you that, a guide will not help you.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 September 2012 04:39:57AM 1 point [-]

Could you taboo "asshole"?

Comment author: wedrifid 22 September 2012 06:39:27AM 4 points [-]

Could you taboo "asshole"?

It's fairly taboo already.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 September 2012 10:51:04PM 0 points [-]

shminux has helpfully provided an example of the sort of fake poll that should have no place here.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 September 2012 10:55:08PM 3 points [-]

While I agree with the last part of your sentence, it is still a real poll.

Comment author: wedrifid 23 September 2012 07:31:08AM 2 points [-]

shminux has helpfully provided an example of the sort of fake poll that should have no place here.

And, even more helpfully, provided an example of it already being handled successfully by existing measures. He was downvoted extensively and subjected to extensive social pressure via comments.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 22 September 2012 05:11:27PM 0 points [-]

Could you taboo "asshole"?

Explain how not to be an asshole? Possibly, but I don't think anyone here actually needs an explanation, beyond pointing out that anything you shouldn't say for that reason in an ordinary comment, you shouldn't say in a poll either. The slightly different sort of thing that a poll is doesn't change the standard.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 September 2012 06:13:32PM 0 points [-]

And I was hoping to extract your moral theory from you.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 24 September 2012 07:48:13AM 0 points [-]

I don't see this as anything to do with moral theory. It's pretty much general currency what constitutes being an asshole. I've seen it set out in umpteen comment policies on blogs, which often explicitly summarise it as "don't be an asshole", or even "don't be an asshole -- but you knew that already".

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 24 September 2012 11:22:14PM 0 points [-]

I don't see this as anything to do with moral theory.

I don't understand what you mean here. Is your concept of moral theory only something for thought experiments involving Omega but to abstract to apply to day-to-day life?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 25 September 2012 06:19:54AM *  0 points [-]

No. I mean it in the same sense that we do not need to have a discussion of moral theory in order to agree on what actions we are talking about, when we talk about theft. We don't even need to have a discussion of moral theory to agree that we'd rather people didn't behave that way.

Comment author: MaoShan 22 September 2012 03:37:25AM 0 points [-]

That flies in the face of many of the helpful articles I've read here on LessWrong. I would offer to write the "Rationalist's Guide to Not Being an Asshole", but obviously, I'm not qualified.

...because I'm not a good enough Rationalist. ;)