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.

Jiro comments on PSA: Eugine_Nier evading ban? - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: Dahlen 07 December 2014 11:23PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (68)

CC Licenced

Tags: meta

Comments (68)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: Jiro 14 December 2014 12:22:34AM 3 points [-]

That's the kind of content conducive to rationality discussions, identifying who may skirt a rule then create a public outcry for blood until the mods have to step in.

Skirting rules is already not conducive to rationality discussions. Identifying who's skirting the rules is just a way to mitigate some of the damage, given that the rule makes sense at all. (If skirting rules didn't cause damage, why would we even have the rule?)

Furthermore, it's not so much a public outcry for blood as it is a public outcry for something that only moderators can do. Itr's not the users' fault that moderators have made examining the evidence of abuse exclusive to themselves and then refuse to actually examine it.

Comment author: Dahlen 14 December 2014 12:35:28AM 2 points [-]

Itr's not the users' fault that moderators have made examining the evidence of abuse exclusive to themselves and then refuse to actually examine it.

Now. Viliam and Eliezer did the best they could in this situation.

Comment author: Kawoomba comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Username 14 December 2014 10:56:49PM 3 points [-]

The person who used to post under the handle Eugine_Nier was banned from Less Wrong. Returning with a new account is a violation of that ban.

Comment author: Jiro 14 December 2014 08:50:42AM 2 points [-]

Jiro, are you Eugine Nier?

No, I was his victim, and since you could have figured this out without resort to further moderator actions, it fails a basic sanity check.

Nobody is suggesting that the moderators should be required to do things that fail a basic sanity check, so that's a strawman.

Comment author: Kawoomba comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: Jiro 14 December 2014 09:09:59AM 3 points [-]

The public aspect is toxic. But so is moderators not doing things, and so is people getting away with causing trouble because moderators are not doing things. It's a tradeoff.

Comment author: Kawoomba 14 December 2014 09:26:02AM -2 points [-]

I agree.

On this specific case: Now that some clear rules (well, at least comparatively, in the UK "case law" sense) have been established, mass downvoting is a bannable offense. However, the new account (even though it was identified as the same poster) didn't show any signs of "causing trouble" in the "bannable offense" direction. No justice was served. It was a veteran, probably someone whom LW means a lot to, trying to keep that aspect of his life somewhat intact. I have no special bond to the guy, but he did contribute a number of quality comments over the years, that much I remember. There is no indication he hadn't learned his lesson (about mass downvotes).

This is a decision for a mod to make. It's not a cry for help because something obviously bad has happened and urgent action is needed. I disagree with public shaming on principle, but in a muddy case like this, it's especially abominable, in my opinion. It's a sort of vague justice porn by someone who "really dislikes people skirting the rules". Skirting, not even breaking! Queue the denunciation! Coming close to Godwin'ing myself, here.

As you say, it can all be seen as a tradeoff. The scales would be weighed differently if this community weren't so small, and the frequency of new topics so low.

Comment author: gjm 15 December 2014 12:06:23AM 4 points [-]

There is no indication he hadn't learned his lesson (about mass downvotes).

Apart from the fact that there's some (albeit weak; no one's done the database-diving to get strong evidence either way) evidence that Azathoth123 has been engaging in mass-downvoting.

(In particular, I saw some weak evidence that he did it to me -- though not on quite the scale that Eugine_Nier did before.)

Comment author: Kawoomba 15 December 2014 12:20:03AM 3 points [-]

Fair point, that would certainly change my assessment of the guy and the warranted mod action, albeit not of the public aspect of this. As Jiro mentioned up the comment chain, it certainly is a trade-off. Maybe noone would have put the clues together otherwise (or see their suspicions mirrored by others), and yours is important indeed.

I guess the whole "single someone out publicly in a negative way" is my personal ugh-field (who woulda thunk, right?), which may be why I seem to fall on the other side of the trade-off than apparently most other LW'ers.

Jiro comments on PSA: Eugine_Nier evading ban? - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (68)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (68)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login