I downvoted this post (with the implied "despite prominently opposing Alicorn's behaviors when they occured" intended to lend at least some degree of emphasis). We didn't need it. Meta crap is tiresome, doesn't need a new post ever time and that particular subject had already played itself out in the immediate context of the conflict in question. (I downvote most other meta threads too, so this isn't specific.)
I also don't think making this post was the politically optimal move for Silas to make. I tend to downvote people who don't seem to be acting effectively toward their perceived objectives.
Oh, and what the hell, I may as well give an actual answer while I'm here:
When to prohibit Alice from replying to Bob's arguments?
Never. Impement a jolly ignore feature already. It'll make everyone better off. Until that time use the "ignore feature" that everybody already has built in and just don't pay any attention or make any response to people you don't want to listen to.
The above said, I still would mostly avoid replying to Alicorn---or Bob or Alice or whatever the euphemism is supposed to be---if she happened to personally ask me to. Not out of obligation but ...
Meta crap is tiresome.
Agreed. Especially when you don't know the context of the discussion and it gives the feeling of LW being about a small clique of people and their issues, rather than actually talking about interesting things.
In general the site runs really well, all the stuff recently about not feeding trolls or filtering out newer people seems unnecessary and counterproductive.
If I see non-standard, extreme methods of community forum administration, and I wish to stop it or make it consistent, I have two options:
1) I can discuss the merit of the policy in the abstract, divorced from any particular instance.
2) I can discuss it with specific reference to the most recent events, thus rebooting that discussion and escalating it to a flamewar (or a worse flamewar if it's already one)
No matter which way I go, you can come up with a reason why I did the stupidest/most inflammatory method. So, your comment doesn't tell me a lot about what I should do instead -- unless your position really is, "That's a great policy, don't bother even talking about it."
Or perhaps that was the game -- if I argue the abstract, you accuse me of being passive-aggressive about the particular; and if I argue the particular, you accuse me of rekindling and widening the existing drama. Either way, potentially abusive moderation gets a free pass.
The hard part: tell me what I should have done, that would met with your non-disapproval.
Never. Either warn Alice, ban Alice, or leave it alone. Attempting to give Alice an Internet restraining order is only going to cause her to find more roundabout ways of expressing her views (e.g. dragging the conflict into other threads.) Just keep it simple.
I saw something for the first time today. I replied to a comment that had been down-voted, and the site asked me,
Replies to downvoted comments are discouraged. Pay 5 Karma points to proceed anyway?
So, if one person dislikes a comment, it shouldn't be responded to? I disagree strongly. This makes the site enforce a tyranny of the majority. It punishes resistance to groupthink.
I don't think Alice should be prohibited from responding to Bob, ever. If two users create drama with back-and-forth responses, they have both chosen to do so.
nearly everyone opposes it, but Eliezer supports it.
I'm not sure which way this bears on the "Lw is just a cult of personality around Eliezer" hypothesis. On the one hand, lots of people opposed Eliezer on something. On the other, we let him get away with this shit and don't just leave.
I'm not sure which way this bears on the "Lw is just a cult of personality around Eliezer" hypothesis. On the one hand, lots of people opposed Eliezer on something. On the other, we let him get away with this shit and don't just leave.
Perhaps LW was originally a personality cult around Eliezer and now it just has Eliezer around as historic legacy that is too hard to get rid of for logistical reasons (like namespace ownership). Kind of like the UK still has a Queen as a head of state.
Under what conditions should a specific poster, "Alice" be prohibited from replying directly to the arguments in a post/comment made by another poster, "Bob"?
None, but a "block list" or similar filter should be implemented, allowing posters to screen out all posts/comments from specific other posters. Further, posters engaging in deliberate harassment should have direct action taken against them.
I'd rather there wasn't any official policy on this, and it was just solved informally among the concerned parties.
Either Alice can abstain from replying to Bob (answering in sister comments instead, if she really needs to), or Alice can reply to Bob at the risk of looking like a douche. It doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice for either party, and not one worth escalating over.
A more general policy that would be worth having is that if some users start creating too much drama and bickering between themselves, the moderators should feel free to start nuking posts.
I took it to mean, "should not have moderator powers with respect to their feud". If Eliezer and some other guy are fighting, Eliezer's not allowed to ban that guy not matter how badly he behaves - he has to prevail on e.g. lukeprog to do it.
I saw a BAN link on a list of comments, wasn't even sure if it was attached to the draft of a post above or the comment below. I hovered over it hoping for a hint as to what it does. Then I did something that often helps you figure out what something does: I clicked it.
It changed from a link saying BAN to a non-link saying BANNED. I still have no idea what it does.
1) What does it do? 2) How in general should I get answers to questions about what various features of the site do?
In light of recent (and potential) events, I wanted to start a discussion here about a certain method of handling conflicts on this site's discussion threads, and hopefully form a consensus on when to use the measure described in the title. Even if the discussion has no impact on site policy ("executive veto"), I hope administrators will at least clarify when such a measure will be used, and for what reason.
I also don't want to taint or "anchor" the discussion by offering hypothetical situations or arguments for one position or another. Rather, I simply want to ask: Under what conditions should a specific poster, "Alice" be prohibited from replying directly to the arguments in a post/comment made by another poster, "Bob"? (Note: this is referring specifically to replies to ideas and arguments Bob has advanced, not general comments about Bob the person, which should probably go under much closer scrutiny because of the risk of incivility.)
Please offer your ideas and thoughts here on when this measure should be used.