You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

pragmatist comments on [moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment - Less Wrong Discussion

107 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 03 July 2014 12:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (366)
Tags: meta

Comments (366)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pragmatist 03 July 2014 09:17:26PM 10 points [-]

The more specific it is, the stronger the implication that things left unmentioned are not actually verbotten.

The specific circumstance is explicitly offered as one particular example of a general policy (it's preceded by "e.g."), so I think there's a pretty strong implication that there are other things left unmentioned that are in fact verboten.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 03 July 2014 10:22:09PM *  16 points [-]

It's pretty much always a mistake to apply legal-style reasoning to moderator actions on an Internet forum, anyway. The job of moderators is to keep the forum working, not merely to follow previously published procedures. Legal rules such as nulla poena sine lege don't apply in this context. They're supposed to wing it a bit when necessary.

Comment author: David_Gerard 03 July 2014 11:54:18PM *  21 points [-]

"It's like a bar. The idea is to maintain a good time. If you are asked to cool it at a bar, and you start debating the precise details of the rules and the wording thereof and who can eject you when and so forth, the large fellow with the number on his shirt will be guiding you to the exit in short order, possibly with a humorous CLANG off the bins opposite." (from a Facebook group; doesn't quite apply to LW directly)

  1. I'm not a dick!
  2. What's the actual detailed definition of being a dick anyway?
  3. You can't prove I was being a dick.
  4. You just call people dicks so you can kick them.
  5. I wasn't even there when my account was being a dick.
  6. I'm only a dick because it's necessary to be a dick. Which I wasn't. And you can't prove it.
  7. HOW DARE YOU BLOCK ME I PROTEST
Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 12:09:00AM 4 points [-]

Sure, but then they shouldn't pretend to be justified on the basis of rules that actually do no such thing. I'm happy with Eliezer's dictatorship, but it should be an epistemically honest dictatorship.

Comment author: Username 07 July 2014 01:23:46AM 1 point [-]

Speaking of which, Eliezer has been strangely silent throughout this whole affair.

Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 01:55:40AM 3 points [-]

Eliezer has been silent on LW in general; I'm pretty sure it has little to do with this.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 July 2014 01:54:44AM 0 points [-]

He last commented on June 27, so it's entirely possible he hasn't seen it yet.

Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 12:07:41AM 2 points [-]

The specific circumstance is explicitly offered as one particular example of a general policy

Unfortunately the origional rule was not really grammatical enough to establish a general policy. If you remove the 'e.g.', as you should from a valid sentance, all we're left with is

If we determine that you're, we reserve the right to delete those comments.

Which doesn't even vaguely hint at a general policy!

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit