MattG comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: MrMind 05 October 2015 06:50AM

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

Comments (346)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 17 October 2015 06:22:28PM 1 point [-]

And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn't value.

Ahh, I see what's happening. You're thinking of my suggestion as "Don't ban people who's opinion you disagree with."

But that's not actually what I meant. You're very welcome to disagree with the person you ban - it's just that you shouldn't ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.

Comment author: Tem42 17 October 2015 07:42:36PM *  0 points [-]

Doesn't that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation -- people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can't be banned for for being intentionally offensive -- whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?

Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts -- that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!

Comment author: [deleted] 17 October 2015 08:56:50PM 1 point [-]

No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn't say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.

However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that's not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.