The post disappears from the list of posts, and probably can't be found by searching, but it still exists and can be linked to and commented on, and any comments on it still appear in the new comments feed.

I think it also can't be voted on after being deleted, but I wouldn't swear to it.

I would prefer if you don't delete it. As for now, you aren't losing any karma from it, and there are already several comments. I am often frustrated when comments with replies get deleted and you can read the replies while the context is inaccessible. I don't know what happens when a post with comments is deleted.

Moreover, even if the suggestion isn't agreed upon, its existence at least makes clear what it is not agreed upon, and saves effort of future readers who may propose the same.

*looks*

The intentions of the various categories seem to have changed considerably in this version, which suggests that maybe we need to talk about what we want this list of norms to do before we figure out what subcategories it needs.

To that end, I see three obvious goals. In rough order of importance:

1. Codify skills, habits, and meta-beliefs that will help people be rational, e.g. rationalist taboo.

2. Codify norms of this group, to make it easy for people to join up - rather like Silas' 'signs about how things are done here' idea.

3. List useful, basically-settled beliefs for people to build on, e.g. Ocham's Razor or Bayseanism.

I am also worried about adopting religious practices. But to ascertain whether it happens or not, it seems easier to ask directly: "do we want to adopt this set of practices?" rather than to ask "what norms we should adopt". I would even be afraid that the simple fact of having explicit norms, especially norms on beliefs, would move the community closer to the realm of religions. I really don't want to be told that I should support cryonics, believe in many-worlds QM and be an atheist, or leave LW for good (and if there is no "or leave" or analogical punishment for norm violation, why call that norms?). I prefer when people spread beliefs by argument, not by social pressure.

Agreed, and on closer reading the OP seems to need to be reworded to reflect this.

I wouldn't have a problem with describing the norms that currently happen to hold among LW users, but I do with prescribing them.

EDIT: to elaborate, there's a difference between following a norm, and thinking that it's the best norm and that it deserves to be codified and officially explicitly endorsed.

Instead of saying "we should believe that the Earth is round because it looks round when seen from the space", just say "the Earth is round because it looks round when seen from the space". The latter sentence is clearer and doesn't lack anything important which the former has.

The latter sentence parses as either malformed or false, to me. The earth appears to be round from space because it's round, not vice versa; the earth is round because of the forces that were involved in its creation.

I do agree that the 'should' needs to go, but I think the formulation should look something like 'it is rational to believe [thing] because [evidence]' or 'I/we believe [thing] because [evidence]'.

Not prescribing the beliefs, taboos and practices of LW members.

Be very careful what you assert, even if it's true. It's really easy to start with good ideas and end up with a doctrine.

If you make a statement like "we should believe cryonics is desirable" or even something as basic (for LW) as "we believe in reductionism", it's really easy to exclude or piss off all the people we actually want to reach.

A very minimal set of skepticism might work. Something like RAW's advice in Prometheus Rising: "Avoid coming to any strong conclusions prematurely. [...] Believe it possible that you do not know everything yet, and that you might have something still to learn."

This is a terrible idea.