= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Downvote stalkers: Driving members away from the LessWrong community? - 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 (128)
<Ignore> is awesome.
Some people are concerned about Signal/Noise. Filter some people, and poof, signal/noise is improved for you according to your tastes.
Some people liked walled gardens. Great! <Ignore> is your personal wall. Throw everyone you don't want to over that wall.
You mean, like life, where people associate with the people they like, and don't associate with those they don't?
It's hardly necessary, as it's impossible to do now. It merely gives you an option to do so.
What? I read a post, get annoyed, and click, that person drops into my bit bucket never to be seen again. Nothing could possibly be easier.
It's a personal moderation policy that you control. I would rather have Eugine on the list. From his 9000 karma, I doubt that I'm alone. But I don't have that option.
This is simple a category error. What is the "it" that has a moral duty to "never be"?
Problem user, according to who? Eugine's downvoting was a minor problem in the karma system. That's hardly the only deficiency of it. That's hardly the only problem around here.
My problem is having a valuable poster banned from the list.
Options have a habit of becoming mandatory over time as norms adjust to their presence. Make it possible to ignore people and I guarantee that a year later, when the next white supremacist or militant Maoist or Randroid or whatever shows up, you'll get people saying that it's not a problem, everyone just needs to ignore them and they'll never need to see them again. I further guarantee that said white supremacists etc. will respond to this by settling down and carving out hateful little niches for themselves in the forum ecosystem, as the people that care start dropping them into their killfiles and stop downvoting their posts or leaving angry responses or, y'know, actually proving them wrong.
All of which comes to a huge waste of effort, because...
...you should now imagine that process being repeated by some large fraction of the two thousand users on this forum, every time a problem (excuse me, controversial) user shows up or creates a new sockpuppet. Doesn't look so trivial now, does it?
Some people want centrally enforced ideological litmus tests, and some don't.
Scales linearly. Click <ignore>, and they're gone, for everyone who doesn't want to see them. Nothing could be simpler. An order of magnitude (or two) less sound and fury than we've spent on Eugine.
The entire point is that we can and should do a lot better than O(n).
We haven't. To quote myself:
The recent ban was executed through administrative action. That's O(1), albeit apparently with a high constant factor if Kaj's posts are to be trusted. There's been a lot of drama surrounding it, but that doesn't have anything to do with scalability.
(Personally, I'd say most of the drama has to do with preexisting cultural and administrative issues that this has dragged squirming into the light, and takes the late unpleasantness as a proximate rather than an ultimate cause, but we may reasonably disagree on that point.)