You used a sockpuppet specifically to deceive gwern.

That phrasing makes it sound like the purpose was malicious; "deception" seems to imply "defection" in a way that "trickery" or "guile" doesn't. Despite the negative connotations, I'll keep using the word you introduced, with the intent of signalling good faith. I'm perfectly comfortable using trickery and guile if the consequence is actually easing communication and decreasing level of hostility between members of this here community; what I did wrong was that I did not think it through and did not execute the deception competently, and so I did a disservice to my cause.

Said cause, I believe, is the furthering of this community's goals, namely the avoidance of existential risks, which I believed is furthered by promoting cooperation and communication between memebers; if I find it optimal to use harmless sockpuppetry to help people here get along and understand each other better, that's what I will do. I only wish that I had had the opportunity to offer an example of such an action that didn't seem so self-serving.

Of course, if I had been competent in executing the deception, I wouldn't have had to explain anything to anyone, and would have been free to do good without being so inconvenienced; once I'd have ascertained the effectiveness of the method, I would have been free to explain it, and, evidence in hand, encourage others to follow the example I'd had set. Nevertheless, because I believe in the soundness of what I did, and unless I'm persuaded to do otherwise by argument or by karmic force, I shall endeavour to find more evidently altruistic opportunities to demonstrate the goodness of this kind of deception. If you, or any other reader, wish to argue against me doing that rather than simply and effortlessly downvote me into oblivion, I'll gladly hear them out.

If you are surprised that observers interpret that as defection, pay attention to your surprise and learn something.

I can't say I'd be surprised if they did (although there isn't much evidence that they really did, yet); I wish to believe what is true. That's why I openly and candidly asked; to measure and probe the result of the experiment, look at the city, rather than merely speculate in a dark room. If some observers see it as defection and I don't, that means we have different standards for what constitutes defection. It would be in my interest to conform to their standards, depending on their number, but I'd rather try first to convince them of the validity of my own, in which I sincerely believe. The result of this open and frank confrontation would be:

• If they can convince me that my standards are invalid, I will change them, and my behaviour accordingly.

• If I can convince them that my standards are valid, I will keep behaving as I have until now, and everyone's standards will be improved.

Either outcome is preferable to the situation where I and them have different standards and I behave to accommodate them out of fear of reprisals rather than out of sincere conviction; that agree-to-disagree situation would be anti-rational. It is also quick and easy, so it might be what ends up happening, but I sincerely don't wish for it; I'd rather be reasoned into changing my behaviour than persuaded by force.

As for your last point: when it comes to maintaining a conversation with myself, I'm trying to exemplify what I believe is exemplary behaviour in dealing with disagreements; that if one has to point out mistakes, one should do so calmly and politely, that If one has to take criticism, do so graciously and humbly, and that one should not take offence at the mistakes of others, nor should they take offense at others pointing out one's mistakes.

To sum it up in the briefest terms; sorry if this looked bad, I was honestly trying to do good.

EDIT: After giving it additional throught, I've remembered this wonderful piece. Consider the arguing done; I am now convinced that what I attempted to do was ill-advised, and I apologize for not having noticed I was taking the wrong path sooner. I will from now on refrain from attempting dangerous utilitarian acrobatics and will stick to more conventional morality and simpler rules-of-thumb.