= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Compromise: Send Meta Discussions to the Unofficial LessWrong Subreddit - 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 (41)
Upvoted for this, which is an admirably plausible formulation.
As for the proposed rule and policy, I continue to think that increasing compliance with "downvote what you want less of" would subsume most of the benefits of the various new policies being proposed, and I continue to be skeptical of the benefits of stating new policies where compliance with existing stated policies is the issue.
Then the right meta thing we need to do is: remind people that their (not) downvoting (or even upvoting of things they consider wrong, but feel it is fair to give them visibility because of some abstract principle) has consequences. Most obviously, the consequence of getting more of what they don't downvote, or even upvote.
Next thing would be to emphasise that there are different forms of criticism, and that well-written criticism is typically well accepted (see Holden). Therefore we do not have to pay attention to trolling-style criticism.
Then, if someone sees a comment saying "okay, I know this is stupid and offensive, and was already said hundred times, but I upvoted it anyway because I think LessWrong needs dissenting voices", it can be responded by a link to that article.
Sure, I endorse all of this. (Well, at least if "the right thing we need to do" is replaced by "a useful thing we can do".)