I think a reasonable reader could come away from that comment of gjm's uncertain whether or not Said simply saying "examples?" would count as an example.

...

I should also note here that I don't think you have explicitly staked out that you think Said just saying "examples?" is bad (like, you didn't here, which was the obvious place to), I am inferring that from various things you've written (and, tho this source is more suspect and so has less influence, ways other people have reacted to Said before).

To clarify:

If one starts out looking to collect and categorize evidence of their conversational partner not doing their fair share of the labor, then a bunch of comments that just say "Examples?" would go into the pile. But just encountering a handful of comments that just say "Examples?" would not be enough to send a reasonable person toward the hypothesis that their conversational partner reliably doesn't do their fair share of the labor.

"Do you have examples?" is one of the core, common, prosocial moves, and correctly so.  It is a bid for the other person to put in extra work, but the scales of "are we both contributing?" don't need to be balanced every three seconds, or even every conversation.  Sometimes I'm the asker/learner and you're the teacher/expounder, and other times the roles are reversed, and other times we go back and forth.

The problem is not in asking someone to do a little labor on your behalf. It's having 85+% of your engagement be asking other people to do labor on your behalf, and never reciprocating, and when people are like, hey, could you not, or even just a little less? being supercilious about it.

Said simply saying "examples?" is an example, then, but only because of the strong prior from his accumulated behavior; if the rule is something like "doing this <100x/wk is fine, doing it >100x/wk is less fine," then the question of whether a given instance "is an example" is slightly tricky.

I think this point is our core disagreement. I see the second comment saying "yeah, Duncan's rule against horses, the thing where he dislikes white ones", and you proceeding as if he just said "Duncan's rule against horses." I think there was a illusion of transparency behind "specifically reaffirmed by Said".

Yeah, you may have pinned it down (the disagreement).  I definitely don't (currently) think it's sensible to read the second comment that way, and certainly not sensible enough to mentally dock someone for not reading it that way even if that reading is technically available (which I agree it is).  

Like, I think if you had said "STRAWMAN!" and tried to get us to put a scarlet S in Said's username, this would have been a defensible accusation

I perhaps have some learned helplessness around what I can, in fact, expect from the mod team; I claim that if I had believed that this would be received as defensible I would've done that instead. At the time, I felt helpless and alone*/had no expectation of mod support for reasons I think are reasonable, and so was not proceeding as if there was any kind of request I could make, and so was not brainstorming requests.

*alone vis-a-vis moderators, not alone vis-a-vis other commenters like gjm

I do think that you should put a scarlet P in Said's username, since he's been doing it for a couple weeks now and is still doing it (c.f. "I have yet to see any compelling reason to conclude that this [extremely unlikely on its face hypothesis] is false."). 

In my favorite world, you call it a mislabeling and identify why you think the label fails to match (again, noting that gjm attempted to do so, tho I think not in a way that bridged the gap).

I again agree that this is clearly a better set of moves in some sense, but I'm thinking in a fabricated options frame and being, like, is that really actually a possible world, in that the whole problem is Said's utterly exhausting and unrewarding mode of engagement.  Like, I wonder if I might convince you that your favorite world is incoherent and impossible, because it's one in which people are engaging in the colloquial definition of insanity and never updating their heuristics based on feedback.  Or maybe you're saying "do it for the audience and for site norms, then," which feels less like throwing good money after bad.

But like.  I think I'm getting dinged for impatience when I did not, previously, get headpats for patience? The wanted behavior feels unincentivized relative to the unwanted behavior.

When I say "locally", I am starting the clock at Killing Socrates, which was perhaps unclear. 

No, that was pretty clear, and that's what generated the :((((((((. The choice to start the clock there feels unfair-to-Neville, like if I were a teacher I would glance at that and say "okay, obviously this is not the local beginning" and look further.

Do you think Said would not also stop if, for every post he read on LW, he found that someone else had already made the comment he would have liked to have made?

I am wary of irresponsibly theorizing about the contents of someone else's mind. I do think that, if one looks over the explosive proliferation of his threads once he starts a back-and-forth, it's unlikely that there's some state in which Said is like "ah, people are already saying all the things!"  I suspect that Said (like others, to be clear; this is not precisely a criticism) has an infinite priority list, and if all the things of top priority are handled by other commenters, he'll move down to lower ones.

I do think that if you took all of Said's comments, and distributed 8% of them each into the corpus of comments of Julia Galef, Anna Salamon, Rob Bensinger, Scott Garrabrant, you, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Logan Brienne Strohl, Oliver Habryka, Kelsey Piper, Nate Soares, Eric Rogstad, Spencer Greenberg, and Dan Keys this would be much better.  Part of the problem is the sheer concentration of princely entitlement and speaking-as-if-it-is-the-author's-job-to-convince-Said-particularly-regardless-of-whether-Said's-skepticism-is-a-signal-of-any-real-problem-with-the-claims.

If Kelsey Piper locally is like, buddy, you need to give me more examples, or if Spencer Greenberg locally is like, but what the heck do you even mean by "annoying," there's zero sense (on my part, at least) that here we go again, more taking-without-contributing.  Instead, with Kelsey and Spencer it feels like a series of escalating favors and a tightening of the web of mutual obligation in which everybody is grateful to everybody else for having put in so many little bits of work here and there, of course I want to spill some words to help connect the dots for Kelsey and Spencer, they've spilled so many words helping me.

The pattern of "give, then take, then give, then take, then take, then take, then give, then give" is a healthy one to model, and is patriotically Athenian in the frame of my recent essay, and is not one which, if a thousand newbies were to start emulating, would cause a problem.

But perhaps our disagreement is that, on seeing Elizabeth's comment, I didn't have a strong impulse to 'set the record straight'

I don't think that mods should be chiming in and setting the record straight on every little thing. But when, like, Said spends multiple thousands of words in a literally irrational (in the sense of not having cruxes and not being open to update and being directly contradicted by evidence) screed strawmanning me and claiming that I block people for disagreeing with my claims or criticizing my arguments—

—and furthermore when I ask for mod help—

—then I do think that a LessWrong where a mod shows up to say "false" and "actually cut it out for real" is meaningfully different and meaningfully better than the current Wild West feel where Said doesn't get in trouble but I do.