= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on [meta] Policy for dealing with users suspected/guilty of mass-downvote harassment? - 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 (239)
I agree with most of your points, but there is absolutely no way to prevent discussion. Even if it is somehow blocked on LW, it will happen elsewhere.
I didn't mean: "you are not allowed to discuss this". I meant: "this is our decision, and it's final; you can discuss it if you wish, but it won't change the outcome".
In other words, I recommend against deciding a penalty for a specific case by a community vote. Because it could easily become a poll about whether the offender's faction is more powerful than the victim's faction, or vice versa.
Yeah, blocking topics of discussion on LW is one of those things that doesn't work out so well.
Understatement of the year! :D
One of my proudest stupid moments on the Internet was when I was chatting to Mike Godwin (I know him through Wikimedia, he was their lawyer for a while) and I compared someone to Neville Chamberlain. ... talking to Mike Godwin. He just said "don't talk to me about WWII stuff, there's no happy ending to that discussion."