= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hairyfigment comments on Rationality Quotes Thread August 2015 - 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 (222)
I am going to publicly call for banning user VoiceOfRa for the following reasons:
(1) VoiceOfRa is almost certainly the same person as Eugene_Nier and Azathoth123. This is well known in rationality circles; many of us have been willing to give him a second chance under a new username because he usually makes valuable contributions.
(2) VoiceOfRa almost certainly downvote bombed the user who made the grandparent comment, including downvoting some very uncontroversial and reasonable comments.
(3) As I have said before in this context, downvote abuse is very clear evidence of being mindkilled. It is also a surefire way to ensure you never change your mind, because you discourage people who disagree with you from taking part in the discussion and therefore prohibit yourself from updating on their information. I do not understand how someone who genuinely believes in epistemic rationality could think this is a good strategy.
I will also note that I was the first person to publicly call out Eugine_Nier under his previous username, Azathoth123, at http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0g/link_quotasmicroaggressionandmeritocracy/bd4o . Like I said in that comment, I continue to believe he is a valuable contributor to the community. Like many other people, I have been willing to give him a second chance under his new username. However, this was conditional on completely ceasing and desisting with the downvote abuse. And yes, any downvoting of old comments made in a different context is a clear example of abuse.
The following links provide background material for readers who are unfamiliar with Eugine_Nier and the context in which I am requesting a ban:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/kbk/meta_policy_for_dealing_with_users/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kfq/moderator_action_eugine_nier_is_now_banned_for/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ld0/psa_eugine_nier_evading_ban/
Edited to add: If I see clear evidence that VoiceOfRa is not Eugine_Nier, or that he was not behind the most recent downvote abuse, I will retract this message and publicly apologize
It is clearly the same person. And yes, he's actively trying to drive away people for disagreeing with his politics (and/or correctly predicting the presence of neo-reactionaries in a conversation, based on past experience). He also seems to use multiple sockpuppets for upvotes, although I suppose lots of people could just be functionally illiterate.
Giving him a "second" chance seems like a clear failure at reflective decision theory. The punishment should discourage the crime, not just stop the crime. So far it's done neither.
No doubt Nier believes the whole "Cathedral" has defected against him - but unless you think he started out responding to some credible abuse on LW, I really don't care. His beliefs are not Bayesian evidence.
If argument screens of authority (http://lesswrong.com/lw/lx/argument_screens_off_authority/), then argument clearly also screens off lack of authority. Moreover, when someone has a repeated history of making arguments that stand on their own, it would be foolish to make the claim that that person's opinions carry a likelihood ratio of 1. Repeated history of sound arguments is pretty much the definition of authority.
I am the one who called for banning VoiceOfRa, and I stand by that judgement. It is more important to me that we don't give veto power over who joins this community to a lone neoreactionary. However, it would be disingenious to claim that it wouldn't be a difficult trade-off. The community would clearly lose something valuable.
I meant the implied beliefs about persecution. Though I could quibble about the rest. Again, you could think the evidence linked in the grandparent shows that LW is too rewarding of contrarianism and/or conservatism, without checking to see if a complaint is based on reality; you could also think instead that Nier is using sockpuppets to reward himself. But you can't think everything is fine.
No, I don't think so.
In the context of online debates, "actively trying to drive away" means things like threats, discussion of sexual inadequacies, and expressed desires for someone to die in a fire. That is not the case here.
And people who are that sensitive to their karma score are unlikely to be comfortable in LW anyway.
There is a huge difference between mass downvoting happening to an experienced user or to a new user. The experienced user has a lot of karma to waste; and they also have a long history of feedback that their contributions are welcomed by the community. The new user will more likely evaluate the feedback incorrectly (as a dislike by community, as opposed to by a single user who happens to be not representative of the community), and in extreme cases can even lose the ability to post.
My main concern is the abuse of downvotes against new users, which happened in the past, and where in most cases we will never know it happened, because the new users will disappear without giving feedback to the community.
As I mentioned before, this is a technical problem that should have a technical solution.
The relevant political question is how do we get the ability to do something about the code base of LW.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an efficient way to get information about karma voting patterns.
An inefficient way would do. But maybe "shockingly inefficient" is as good as it gets. The Reddit database architecture (which IIRC LW uses) is ... unusual.
That seems to be factually mistaken.
You seem to be engaging in a typical mind fallacy, or some variant of it. If something doesn't bother you, no one else should be bothered by it.
I am sure I'm not immune to the typical mind fallacy, but LW is known for not being particularly gentle with posts it disagrees with. It's pretty far away from a circle jerk. People who are uncomfortable with disapproval are likely to find it unpleasant, regardless of whether it is expressed as a downvote or as a contrary comment.
Note that I'm not arguing that LW should deliberately drive away the thin-skinned, that's certainly a bad idea. However I don't think that someone who is upset by a downvote is going to react well to a comment (or two, or many) telling him he's wrong.
The thing is, a downvote campaign isn't just a losing a point or two, it's more like losing 30 points for no apparent reason in a day. Or, as happened to me for a while, having a downvote appear just about as soon as I posted much of anything. I like LW pretty much, but that really did take away some of the sparkle for me.
A downvote carries much less information than a comment. It's possible to think about whether a comment is reasonable.
I suspect that you're underestimating the psychology behind Karma. The first time Eugine_Neir did this was a natural experiment, and we saw several very valuable members leave from the mass downvoting.
If Ra sees this as a voting game, getting into politically charged arguments with newbies and then down voting them is efficient.
They give him a target that lets him post a lot of replies, and with low karma they can't down vote him back.
He can use a second account to vote up 30% of his replies, giving him a good amount of karma at low risk of discovery.
He gets a chance to run off a newbie that doesn't agree with him.
And we all gain from this. We don't need users that can't ignore a troll.
I'd rather not have a forum de facto moderated by a troll.
I don't pay any particular attention to whom VoiceOfRa replies or does not, but it is not my impression that he specifically targets newbies. In the current case under discussion he seems to have been triggered by the phrase "misogynist asshole".
Your sarcasm needs a lot of work :-P
"Actively trying to drive people away" means doing something with the intention of trying to drive someone away. That could mean screaming at them, overusing the word 'moist', or agreeing with them when they want an argument. It could also mean downvotes. It may be hard to judge if someone is trying to drive someone away, but defaulting to "they are not openly being abusive blowhards" is not really useful unless the only thing you care about is abusive blowhards.
However, I would argue that "actively trying to drive people away" is less important that "driving away productive contributors".
I haven't gone back and checked, but I seem to remember hearing that Eugene_Nier, when contacted by a moderator the first time, said he was trying to drive away people that he considered unproductive. So if it's the same person it's likely that he still tries to drive people away.
I arrive late but with a link to the Kaj_Sotala post you're probably thinking of:
Yes, that's what I remembered.
Why is it clearly the same person?
Here's a start.
Ahem.