= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 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 (346)
I was expecting a rule like bans should be preceded by a warning and a chance to reply.
But a rule like "don't ban people for opinions you disagree with" would also fit the bill, no?
It would, and I was following it for a while.
That would be a horrible rule -- no one would be able to ban me for my ardent desire to eat babies alive. I mean, unless you have some equally perverted moderators...
There is a debate like this- about, abortion. And you're right, I don't think that people should be banned for having the position that pro-lifers think of as "pro-killing babies",
Okay, so that was a bad example... (?) But the point still stands. If in order to ban someone we have to have a moderator who agrees with the person being banned, then some people will be much harder to ban than others. And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn't value.
I am surprised that my original comment was down-karma's so much -- if you have useful feedback onthis (especially 'bad point' vs. 'bad expression of point'), please respond or private msg me -- learning is good!
Ahh, I see what's happening. You're thinking of my suggestion as "Don't ban people who's opinion you disagree with."
But that's not actually what I meant. You're very welcome to disagree with the person you ban - it's just that you shouldn't ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.
Doesn't that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation -- people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can't be banned for for being intentionally offensive -- whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?
Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts -- that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!
No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn't say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.
However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that's not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.
I've said things which could be interpreted as wanting to eat babies, at least if you go by Nancy's "altogether too close to saying" standard (I didn't actually say it, but I got close). I really would not want to be banned for such a thing, and I think banning people for such things is poisonous to the discourse here. The example of killing patients for their organs is another one.