= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on [moderator action] Eugine_Nier is now banned for mass downvote harassment - 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)
Comments (366)
I had a brief period of block down votes (it was obvious, as only old comments were being downvoted, and it was a continual, regular process), but it passed quickly.
I think the ban was justified because of the number of people targeted. Going after one person is bad, but vendettas are understandable (if not approved). But going after huge amounts of people... Well, there we have to multiply.
As for those deploring the ban, I can see your deontological position, but do you think that Less Wrong is going to become measurably worse because of this decision?
I've been thinking of the ban as deontological-- the premise is that Eugene has shown himself to be a sufficiently bad sort of person that he just isn't worth having around.
Perhaps it's a matter of competing deontological frameworks.
<nitpick> Surely that's virtue-ethical, not deontological? </nitpick>
You may be right. I thought deontogical covers all "do the right thing no matter what happens" systems.
Why? Seriously asking. I see no evidence that we were somehow powerless to stop this without banning him.
But if that were the case I would definitely be in favor of doing so.
Well ... yeah. Worse by one user.
(It's not as if his contributions were terrible, remember, a troll that we're well rid of - Eugine was a high-karma user, that's how he was able to downvote so many comments.)