wedrifid comments on Open Thread, July 1-15, 2013 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Vaniver 01 July 2013 05:10PM

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

Comments (342)

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

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2013 09:38:35AM *  7 points [-]

{EDITED to clarify, as kinda suggested by wedrifid, some highly relevant context.}

This comment by JoshuaZ was, when I saw it, voted down to -3, despite the fact that it

  • addresses the question it's responding to
  • gives good reasons for making the guess JoshuaZ said he made
  • seems like it's at a pretty well calibrated level of confidence
  • is polite, on topic, and coherent.

A number of JoshuaZ's other recent comments there have received similar treatment. It seems a reasonable conclusion (though maybe there are other explanations?) that multiple LW accounts have, within a short period of time, been downvoting perfectly decent comments by JoshuaZ. As per other discussions in that thread [EDITED to add: see next paragraph for more specifics], this seems to have been provoked by his making some "pro-feminist" remarks in the discussions of that topic brought up by recent events in HPMOR.

{EDITED to add...} Highly relevant context: Elsewhere in the thread JoshuaZ reports that, apparently in response to his comments in that discussion, he has had a large number of comments on other topics downvoted in rapid succession. This, to my mind, greatly raises the probability that what's going on is "playing the man, not the ball": that the cause of the downvotes isn't simply that many LW participants disagree strongly with me about the merits of the individual comments.

It seems to me that this is a kind of abuse that needs to be stopped. To be clear, I don't mean abuse of JoshuaZ, who I bet is perfectly capable of handling it. I mean abuse of LW. Specifically, it appears to be a concerted attempt to shape discussions here not by rational argument, nor even by appeal to emotion, but by intimidation.

(I suppose I should mention an amusing contrary hypothesis to which I attach very low probability. Perhaps the downvotes are from friends of JoshuaZ, who hope to attract sympathy upvotes and will change their own downvotes to upvotes in a week or two when no one's watching any more.)

I would address this to the LW admins by PM if I knew who they are, but the only person I know to be an LW admin is Eliezer and I believe he's very busy at the moment.

{EDITED to add ...} One other remark, just in case of suspicions. I am not JoshuaZ, nor do I have any idea who he is outside LW, nor (so far as I know) have I had any interaction with him outside LW, nor have I had enough in-LW interaction with him to regard him as an ally or a friend or anything of the kind. There is no personal element to any of what I have said.

{Totally irrelevant remark: The squiggly brackets are because [this sort] which I'd normally use for noting what I've edited interacts badly with the Markdown hyperlink syntax.}

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2013 03:13:24PM 2 points [-]

{Totally irrelevant remark: The squiggly brackets are because [this sort] which I'd normally use for noting what I've edited interacts badly with the Markdown hyperlink syntax.}

The escape character, which solves this and various other potential problems, is "\".

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2013 03:19:22PM *  0 points [-]

Ah yes. Thanks. After a little experimentation, it transpires that what is needed to fix the problem is escaping the opening square bracket of the non-hyperlink text; escaping the closing square bracket is harmless but unnecessary.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2013 04:06:48PM 5 points [-]

Ah yes. Thanks. After a little experimentation, it transpires that what is needed to fix the problem is escaping the opening square bracket of the non-hyperlink text; escaping the closing square bracket is harmless but unnecessary.

Yes, Markdown is robust like that. Which is sometimes a nuisance. You can get away with writing underscored_words but a second underscore fucksitup.