= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tenoke comments on Consider giving an explanation for your deletion this time around. "Harry Yudkowsky and the Methods of Postrationality: Chapter One: Em Dashes Colons and Ellipses, Littérateurs Go Wild" - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (204)
I know it's not good parody. I know I'm a bad writer. That's why people should downvote it. It's only the deleting it despite its being upvoted part that I object to.
It is bad enough to border spam quality, especially if you just skim it. The person who took it down probably looked at it, saw that it is mostly nonsense with negative connotations (and written by someone who was inebriated at the time) and took it down. Do you seriously think that if you had instead written a normal criticizing post, which isn't vague as hell, that post would've been deleted, too?
Nobody should consider a post that sits at +7 as spam. The voting shows that enough people valued the post to keep it.
'It is bad enough to border spam quality' does not mean 'It is spam'. I am only talking about the quality of the content.
/shrugs. I know I'm biased and all but I didn't think it was that terrible. I spent like two hours editing it before posting. People sure are being mean about it though, so idk. I guess maybe I'll give up on trying to improve my fiction writing skill for now... Maybe it's a 'you have it or you don't' thing.
If it makes you feel any better, Eliezer's April 1st fiction post wasn't accepted well, and was deleted in the end as well.
At any rate, you had some clever things in there, but it was mostly too vague and random to convey your point much further than telling us that you have some sort of a criticism.
I do not believe this to be the case, based on having seen some people's improvements over time, but I have not researched this.
Well, there are definitely a lot of people who're bad enough that I'd write off the idea of trying to give them advice as hopeless. But I'd suggest that posting bits of fiction directly to Less Wrong's discussion board isn't a very good place to look for that sort of advice in the first place.
1) "bad enough... especially if you just skim it." So moderation is IMPROVED if the articles deleted are just skimmed. A more careful or thoughtful reading might raise questions and we certainly don't want that on a site like this. Or do we?
2) The post had +7 karma. Where were the downvotes for this horrible post? And why do so many posts with massive downvote levels survive on the site, while this one with positive votes is deleted? Are you that dismissive of the other readers of this site that you support someone just skimming an article and deleting regardless of karma?
Probably not. Just downvoted. SO the lesson is you may criticize our ox but only if you are polite and do not gore it? What kind of human bias is that intended to avoid?
Where do I say this? I can see situations where this will be the case (if the workload is massive), but I am not claiming anything like that.
eye rolling
7 Karma is not a lot, so it probably hasn't been a factor in the deletion. In fact, I suspect that the post wouldn't have been deleted if it had a lot of karma (not that I necessarily agree with that).
Because posts aren't deleted based on Karma.
As dowvoted as this criticism of EA with 59 karma on Main, or as downvoted as this thorough criticism of MIRI(http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/), which is the most upvoted post on the site ever (249 Karma on Main)?
Nope, the problem here isn't politeness and I never claimed that.