= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Username comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion
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
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (1221)
Eliezer has retracted that comment, and has stated that such retractions should be spoilered as they are no longer common knowledge.
We can't force you to ROT13 your original comment as well as this one, but you're not being fair to the spirit of the fanfiction and you should expect to take a karma hit if you don't.
Eliezer does not have the power to declare what is common knowledge. Common knowledge is an objective element of the world, not directly subject to authority. What he can exert power to enforce is that all repetitions of said common knowledge are censored.
That's not how common knowledge works. I was following the fanfic at the time, and I took that revelation as a statement that gur Cvbarre cyndhr guvat jnf vagraqrq nf n pbapyhfvir va-fgbel erirny. It doesn't matter why EY decided to take it back, or even that he did; it clearly wasn't intended at the time he wrote it as a twist to be revealed later, and it was revealed at the time for everyone who was reading it at the time, so why should new readers get a twist we don't get? He made his decision - and the tone IIRC was that he felt that people who didn't figure it out then were stupid - so he should live with it.
Because the author wants to give it to them.
It is commonly held that making friends is easier when you keep judgements about what people should do with their lives and their possessions to a minimum.
Why shouldn't they? Eliezer has edited lots of things in the past in order to improve the story according to his judgment -- e.g. removing a mention of the Philosopher's Stone at chapter 4, or editing Draco's words at chapter 7 to make them less vulgar.
What meta-ethical theory is your objection supposed to be indicative of?
For one thing, there is a difference between editing the text of the story (and we don't seem to be forbidden from mentioning in cleartext what those edits were) and (EDIT turns out this part is wrong) --deciding that a scene is no longer meant to be the big reveal without (as far as I know) changing a word of the text.--
A general norm in forums discussing fiction is that all material published through normal channels (or all but the most recent) is treated equally in regards to the spoiler policy. This would include the entire fic and all authors notes, and not allow for any "retractions" to make something "no longer common knowledge"
My objection was also specifically to the use of the phrase "no longer common knowledge". Stuff cannot be removed from common knowledge by decree, it can only be removed by actually being forgotten by people. I was surprised by this subthread because as recently as this week it was mentioned on IRC with no-one saying anything about it being retracted. Is there a list somewhere of all edits and retractions?
The text was changed; a short scene at the end was deleted for being too obvious.
The scene still means exactly what it did, it's just that a lot of people came away from that scene without figuring out the thing that was stated in the (now deleted) Author's Note, and as I understand it they expressed annoyance at having it thrown in their faces like that.
There is one relevant retraction. It comes up about once per discussion thread, and it is referred to obliquely in the header of every discussion thread. I know that you already know what it is.
Perhaps we should ROT13 the actual spoiler and stick it in the standard MOR discussion header, so that people stop missing the point.
It is a better story without that spoiler. People are very annoyed when it gets spoiled, with good reason.
Sure, the cat's out of the bag, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily clawing your face yet.
It's mentioned explicitly in the "more specifically" link to the original spoiler policy.
What retraction are you referring to? I've heard of several, with none seeming more relevant than any other.
It's mentioned explicitly in the "more specifically" link to the original spoiler policy.
Why am I repeating this?
Because you're aptly pedantic?
It's a blessing and a curse.
Even granting that this is indeed the "general norm" in such forums (I wouldn't know), don't you think that when a thread in some forum states different rules, then it ought be respected?
Or do you feel that no thread, anywhere in the internet, should be allowed to utilize different rules than what you consider the norm?
What I described as the norm has the distinct advantage that the set of things considered "non-spoilery" can never have things removed from it, only added. So people don't have to keep track of removals to know if they can still discuss something that was openly discussed in the past. Having a rule that does not have this property just doesn't work well. You end up with people ignoring the rule, people complaining about the rule, people getting punished for posting things they believed were okay to post... basically everything we've seen in this subthread.
Also, as an aside: Why don't comments have a proper spoiler tag, that you can just select text to see it? I've seen people use them in posts. Some of the resistance to rot13 may be the complexity of using it: it requires multiple steps and an external program.
I agree that we should have a spoiler tag.
One data point in favor of rot13 however: The extra effort it takes to decode is an incentive to try and figure things out on your own.
EDIT: I mean this in general, not just for HPMoR.
This is not a point for using it for something that the majority of people posting in the thread already know. At that point it's just annoying.
EDIT: removed some stuff that's needlessly confrontational and redundant to a different post I made.
If spreading spoilers hurts then its hurt is not limited to vulnerable people posting in the thread, but encompasses all vulnerable people reading the thread.
I doubt you have evidence that the majority of people posting in the thread are aware of the spoiler. I am certain you have only weak reasons to believe you know about all the people reading the thread. I lurked here for over a year.
Do the numerous positive-scored posts on this thread mentioning the spoiler (due to the sporadic enforcement of the rule) count as such evidence? If not, why not?
The context of this post was "rot13" vs "a proper collapsing or color-based spoiler tag to be implemented in markdown", so this is not sufficient to make difficulty a point in rot13's favor, even if it ever was. The people who don't want to read spoilers don't have to view them, in the case of a spoiler tag. Choosing a spoiler tag over rot13 only harms people who A) are harmed by seeing a spoiler [and do not already know the spoiler] and B) have enough willpower to resist un-rot13ing it, but not enough to avoid selecting the text to view it without an external program. That sounds like a very tiny group.
If you have Firefox, install the LeetKey addon.
Chrome also has an extension (the one I use is just called 'rot13').