= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loserthree 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)
It may be difficult to take an apology like this at face value when you could just go back and edit the tone to something you wouldn't have to apologize for. You either put it in before you clicked 'Comment' the first time or you hit Edit to put it in.
Also, he said, "you know perfectly well." This communicates that the conclusion you would draw is the correct one. And that is spoilage.
The rule is that it's only spoilage if you say both things in cleartext in the same post. Yes, I agree, it's a stupid rule, but it is the rule, and I was angry because that argument was used specifically against my claim that it's inconsistently enforced.
"edit the tone to something you wouldn't have to apologize for." I could only do so honestly if this did not make me angry. EDIT - done. I'm still a bit angry about it though...
I wouldn't normally see that as worse than doing something while apologizing for it. This isn't Brockian Ultra Cricket.
No, it isn't. I can say "You know perfectly well that the true source of magic is an advanced artificial intelligence" and that's not a spoiler.
Nonetheless, in context it was rude.
Not quite the same as there isn't potential for spoilage there.
If I said, "If you're like 2/3 of the fans here and you've followed up on links to Methods conversations elsewhere, then you know perfectly well that gur nhgube gbyq n ohapu bs crbcyr ng n jrqqvat gung uvf zntvp flfgrz jnf qrgrezvarq ol cybg pbafgenvarq ol pbzcngvovyvgl jvgu jung ur nyernql rfgnoyvfurq." sans cipher then that would be spoilage.
No, that's a bad example. I'm retracting.