= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on "Hide comments in downvoted threads" is now active - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (87)
Could you taboo "trolling". I think several distinct things are being lumped under that word. Here are the kind of posts that tend to get downvoted:
1) Simply being obnoxious, e.g., "First Post!!!!". As far as I know, these are almost non-existent here.
2) Someone arguing for a crazy position they don't believe.
3) Someone who genuinely believes a crazy position.
4) Someone arguing for a reasonable position that causes some voters to get mind-killed.
Which subset of these do you mean by "trolling" and what do you think is the appropriate response to each?
You forget 5) Someone arguing for a position (crazy or otherwise) in a deliberately provocative way.
Trolling: Provocation for the sake of response.
Pattern-match:
Almost all comments are posted at least in part for the sake of response. What's provocation? In particular, how is it different from nonconformism?
Ok, the next question is whether being voted below -3 is a good proxy for a comment being provocation for the sake of response.
For example, I strongly suspect eridu simply honestly believes the insane ideas he espouses, does he count as "provocation for the sake of response", if not what do you think the appropriate response to his comments should have been?