= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Meta: LW Policy: When to prohibit Alice from replying to Bob's arguments? - 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 (81)
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.
I sympathise with the problem as you state it, but don't know enough about the particular circumstances to know if that is a fair summary or what you would be best doing about it.
Personally I would have preferred if you had mentioned the context in the original post in something like the format of: This thing happened [link and explanation], are we ok with this form of moderation being the norm on here?
Describing the issue in a very abstracted way gives an impression of subterfuge, and makes people feel excluded from the discussion.
I don't disagree with any of that; I just don't know if I'd get as much criticism had I done it that way, or if I'd just be told, "HOW DARE YOU SPREAD THAT CONFLICT TO THE REST OF THE SITE YOU F***ING TERRORIST!"
(My estimate is that you were wise to refrain from providing explicit references.)