= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on More Irrationality Game - 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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
Will initially threatened to create his sock-puppets for the purpose of attempting to do damage to lesswrong if Alicorn did not submit to his will when she considered intervening in a different thread. He has now created these sockpuppets and they are all mild nuisances. The appropriate response to that sort of overt anti-social behavior is banning---a ban that could be removed as soon as he agreed to stop violating what is either a clear norm of the community or an outright violation of the terms of use of the site (I'm not sure if lesswrong has one of those and if it does I haven't read it). Using multiple accounts is (with few exceptions) not-OK, particularly given how easy that makes it to abuse the karma system.
Banning Will (for as long as he blatantly defies the rules) can not prevent him from posting anonymously or vandalizing the site but it does change him from an accepted member of the community to outsider/vandal/troll/spammer. His posts can then be treated the same way the accounts with names like v234lkhj2lhksdfsdflh334 that come to post about pandora necklaces get treated. They barely get noticed and cause no disruption.
If Will manages to create a sockpuppet that is not recognized and doesn't cause any disruptions or cause frequent universal downvoting based on the perceived (lack of) merit of the comments by that account then fantastic. We've been "tricked" into accepting drastically improved contributions.
http://xkcd.com/810/ ?
How could you possibly think jumping to that conclusion is justified? I can't tell if you're really that bad at epistemic rationality (maybe just in this domain? or maybe you're in a weird mood?) or if you're really that intent on getting me banned even if it requires underhanded tactics.
They are definitely mild nuisances. I mean, have you seen them? They jump in and say stupid things. Ban them all.
Your denial counts for something. Not enough that I would assign less than 0.5 probability to them being you but enough that 'benefit of the doubt' applies. At the very least you have distanced yourself from the behavior of the others. Of course if credible evidence (including the testimony of sufficient others) indicated that you were lying about them not being you I'd endorse an unconditional permanent ban.
The frequent inclusion of conditionals and caveats would indicate otherwise and I wouldn't consider my approach here particularly underhanded even if I did have that as a goal. No, this isn't personal---it really is about a preference for enforcement of a sock-puppet abuse policy. "Clippy" is actually on my "Do Not Feed" list due to sockpuppet abuse considerations---in particular, dishonesty regarding the use and being consistently not funny in the role. I now get hatemail from him. Literally, it says "i hate you" in the body and the subject.
This is hilarious.
(How did you manage to reach this state by non feeding him, by the way?)
He wasn't always on said list. Even if he was "non-feeding" does not always mean not taking actions against. For example if I wrote "Do Not Feed" as a response to all other users who replied to given user then that wouldn't be feeding but it would be extremely hostile. (This is hypothetical only.)
Still think this is way too high, but whatever, too hard to consider the counterfactual.
I haven't been annoyed so much as puzzled. I feel like Harry right before he realizes that Snape doesn't make sense.
I dunno dude. I don't see a caveat in "Ban the sockpuppets. And Will." But whatever, as long as you're chill now.
Lol. Strange. (I've been accused of being Clippy before, by the way. Also, as you might remember, AspiringKnitter. It's sorta getting old by now.)
We could try to compensate by starting the rumor that you aren't really Will Newsome, I suppose.
I am Will Newsome!
Ridiculous. You are too creative and intelligent to be Clippy but not quite creative and intelligent enough that you could pull off being that mediocre for that long. You'd have made a far better Clippy if that was a game you had felt like playing.
Emphasis mine.
The way you phrase this suggests that the Will_Newsome account is admitting to running the similarly named accounts.
Do you mean to suggest this, or merely that it should nevertheless be obvious that he's doing so?
As far as I can recall, he has made no explicit claim either way, though he has made various statements that seem clearly intended to imply that he's not responsible for them.
That's not to say that he can't be banned for them anyway, if enough people feel there's enough evidence. I just want to be clear about what's being claimed.
see.
Edit: I'm just going to drop it since a new thread had already been created.
(I do this only very rarely, and even then I didn't aim for complete anonymity, just a buffer against knee-jerk reactions.)
Agh that would be so lame. Also clearly immoral.
Someone is either making it seem as if I am being obvious about it, in which case they are clever, or did not anticipate the consequences of choosing a name that rhymes with mine after I threatened to do that if I were banned, in which case they aren't clever and have a very strange way of thinking. Given what I've seen of Thrill_Shoesome &c. I've found it suspiciously difficult to discern which hypothesis is more likely.
Which I'm fine with.
Lame, yes. Possibly immoral, I don't have a good sense for how much you would care about undermining the Less Wrong karma system. People here tend to be too worried about the integrity of the karma system. It is much more robust than people realize because it is really just a stand-in approximation for actual reputation which is why actual cases of karmassination have been quickly remedied when the user was in good-standing. I'm more worried about the site overreacting to threats than any of the suggested threats so far.
Either way it sounds reasonable to ban the account.
Incidentally, sockpuppets that by strong implication are impersonations of another user are at a whole different level of "BAN! BAN NOW!!!"