= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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 don't know who unbanned this post, but I would be interested in hearing why before I reban the original.
Reason for banning original: It is super obvious that filling up Discussion with such posts would not be good for LW, I have no idea who the hell upvoted that and wonder if they were fake accounts. Will Newsome is a poster with known mental problems and the possibility that he's making fake accounts is one I've considered before. The post contributes nothing to LW and seems like a no-brainer to ban before it happens again.
Who unbanned the original? Why?
(Upvoted because transparency is valuable and to be encouraged.)
He almost certainly has or had fake accounts at various times. I think I've even suggested banning him for that violation. That said, Will's claim that he has not upvoted his own posts via sockpuppets is entirely believable. Take action against Will if necessary for whatever other reason (like a track record of active, insane trolling) but if action is taken against him based on the assumption that a positive reception of his contribution must be fake that would be troubling.
Making decisions 'no-brainers' is easy if one is willing to disassociate oneself from the consequences.
It would make sense to me if action were taken against a plague of drunken fan fiction, or possibly after the first half dozen, but the first such rates a warning and discussion, not deletion.
For some reason, I'm amused that the karma for this and the original post have converged (54% and 53%).. Maybe LW really does have a group mind.
I did. I barely used them, and haven't in a long time. I don't see why that is banworthy or even against community norms; my other accounts all have positive karma and good upvote/downvote ratios, and with one minor exception I used them for the obvious non-antisocial reasons. IIRC you accused me of being TillNoonsome et al, which is false; the real person behind those accounts offered to reveal their identity to clear my name, but I declined, 'cuz at that point there wasn't really any need for it. Also you might have noticed that I haven't engaged in any "insane trolling" for years now. There is no justifiable reason to ban me; the only reason Eliezer would do so is, of course, that he's a punk-ass bitch.
The same reason there is a law against vigilante justice. In many individual cases it's probably ethically justified but I certainly support a general rule against it. Because I don't trust the judgement of all those other f@#$s so take the cooperative mutual suppression of the behavior as the best option.
The appropriate response to willfully ignoring a rule that I approve of for practical reasons is (all else being equal) to encourage the enforcement of said rule. (At the time and without prejudice. Not now or with personal enmity.)
I don't recall the details but I'll believe you if you say I guessed the specifics incorrectly.
True, and at your worst you were never remotely as bad either in trollishness or in rule violation as many that are welcomed. There certainly should be a 'statute of limitations' on punishment for mostly-harmless multiple account use years ago. Especially given that a blind eye is turned on actually abusive cases.
That's... entirely fair. I'd perhaps add 'socially oblivious and incompetent at practical rationality' in there too. It would not be smart, for the reasons Vladimir attempted to explain.
This is a strong point and perhaps I was undervaluing it. But I wonder why 'not having sockpuppets' stands out as a rule that's so important to uphold and start talking about banning in the name of. It doesn't seem to have actually caused many problems on LessWrong, and in fact I suspect that not overly discouraging sockpuppets has had a net positive effect, as it has allowed some people to make interesting posts they otherwise wouldn't have. Of course it has also allowed for some boring people to be boring, so it's not an obvious question, but its not being obvious also means that talking about banning people for it is in my opinion pretty weird. But maybe you've seen sockpuppets become a severe problem on other fora or something? LessWrong is the only forum I have a decent understanding of, but I do think that after many years of painstaking engagement my understanding is rather decent.
Problem enough.
I don't think we do have a well documented rule forbidding it to have multiple accounts.
I don't have any additional accounts, but in case I would wanted to post something on LW which I wouldn't wanted to have associated with my real life identity I wouldn't think it as rule breaking if I would open an account for that conversation.
I don't think we have well-documented rules, period. About the only explicit policy statements I can think of are the one forbidding advocation of violence and now the one interpreting block downvoting as harassment, and those were both posted as normal articles (and thus quickly buried). The FAQ talks about etiquette, but presents very few unequivocal guidelines.
There's a couple other actually-enforced norms I can think of, like "don't talk about the Thought-Experiment-That-Must-Not-Be-Named", but those are even less explicit.
Fwiw, I am more inclined to believe that he just linked the post to a couple of his friends and/or followers.
I did, actually. They didn't like it.