Comment author: Tenoke 10 July 2014 09:09:25AM 1 point [-]

Man, are you touchy.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 July 2014 08:12:47PM 1 point [-]

I'm sorry. Although a lot of what you've said is pointlessly mean you did give a bit of useful feedback and my response should have just focused on that.

Comment author: MrMind 10 July 2014 08:58:18AM 2 points [-]

Downvoted: you ask for critiques and respond by insulting your critic?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 July 2014 08:08:58PM 1 point [-]

You're right, I shouldn't have been mean. My issue is that unlike others whose criticism I really do value Tenoke has mostly just been bashing shit. But still he did point out that my past few sentences are legitimately unclear and so I shouldn't have responded how I did. Your downvote is fair. Mea culpa.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 09 July 2014 08:44:09PM *  3 points [-]

Drunken (by author admission) fanfic isn't what people come to LW to read.

Yet they upvote it.

EDIT: Well, maybe.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 July 2014 10:24:08AM 9 points [-]

It's impossible to tell now, because presumably people are now voting on the drama, not on the content.

Comment author: Tenoke 10 July 2014 08:59:07AM *  1 point [-]

Out of curiosity, what happened that made you change your comment? (and later delete it)

Life must be like a mildly painful drunken haze for you.

Mind projection fallacy?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 July 2014 09:01:15AM *  0 points [-]

Out of curiosity, what happened that made you change your comment? (and later delete it)

The first time I decided I wasn't being rude enough. The second time I decided that I was being too rude.

Mind projection fallacy?

Only partially. Unlike you, I have periods where I can actually think clearly.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2014 12:49:27PM *  10 points [-]

I don't see why that is banworthy or even against community norms; my other accounts all have positive karma and good upvote/downvote ratios, and I used them for the obvious non-antisocial reasons.

The same reason there is a law against vigilante justice. In many individual cases it's probably ethically justified but I certainly support a general rule against it. Because I don't trust the judgement of all those other f@#$s so take the cooperative mutual suppression of the behavior as the best option.

The appropriate response to willfully ignoring a rule that I approve of for practical reasons is (all else being equal) to encourage the enforcement of said rule. (At the time and without prejudice. Not now or with personal enmity.)

IIRC you accused me of being TillNoonsome et al, which is false; the real person behind those accounts offered to reveal their identity to clear my name, but I declined, 'cuz at that point there wasn't really any need for it.

I don't recall the details but I'll believe you if you say I guessed the specifics incorrectly.

Also you might have noticed that I haven't engaged in any "insane trolling" for years now.

True, and at your worst you were never remotely as bad either in trollishness or in rule violation as many that are welcomed. There certainly should be a 'statute of limitations' on punishment for mostly-harmless multiple account use years ago. Especially given that a blind eye is turned on actually abusive cases.

There is no justifiable reason to ban me; the only reason Eliezer would do so is, of course, that he's a punk-ass bitch.

That's... entirely fair. I'd perhaps add 'socially oblivious and incompetent at practical rationality' in there too. It would not be smart, for the reasons Vladimir attempted to explain.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 10 July 2014 05:42:22AM *  6 points [-]

The same reason there is a law against vigilante justice. In many individual cases it's probably ethically justified but I certainly support a general rule against it. Because I don't trust the judgement of all those other f@#$s so take the cooperative mutual suppression of the behavior as the best option.

This is a strong point and perhaps I was undervaluing it. But I wonder why 'not having sockpuppets' stands out as a rule that's so important to uphold and start talking about banning in the name of. It doesn't seem to have actually caused many problems on LessWrong, and in fact I suspect that not overly discouraging sockpuppets has had a net positive effect, as it has allowed some people to make interesting posts they otherwise wouldn't have. Of course it has also allowed for some boring people to be boring, so it's not an obvious question, but its not being obvious also means that talking about banning people for it is in my opinion pretty weird. But maybe you've seen sockpuppets become a severe problem on other fora or something? LessWrong is the only forum I have a decent understanding of, but I do think that after many years of painstaking engagement my understanding is rather decent.

Comment author: palladias 09 July 2014 05:15:56PM 6 points [-]

I'd recommend writing five or so chapters and then posting a link. The fic as you're posting it just feels meta for the sake of meta (charitably, because your narrative is still winding up). I'd be more likely to read/upvote if plot were already happening.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2014 10:31:29PM *  4 points [-]

That makes sense; to be honest, I generally don't have a high opinion of narratives and mostly view them as excuses for authors to write about characters and settings and spew insights and jokes. (I also mean this in the metaphorical post-structuralist sense.) This might be why my fiction is so much worse than my nonfiction writing.

Comment author: hydkyll 09 July 2014 01:15:00PM *  3 points [-]

For what it's worth I would love if LessWrong stuck to only decision theory, microeconomics, cognitive science, ...

So, now that you know the reason why your post was removed, do you agree with the decision? It seems that you're generally in favor of removing "stupid shit that gets upvoted". (And your post wouldn't even have been needed to be removed if you had hosted it at fanfiction.net and posted the link in an open thread.)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2014 01:21:30PM *  13 points [-]

This isn't the should-world. LessWrong is irrevocably a cesspit. The stupid shit will continue to flow. So no, I do not agree with the decision, unless someone like Vladimir_Nesov gets to ban all the stupid shit, which will never happen. Arbitrarily banning my stupid shit in particular just means Eliezer making a fool of himself. There is no sympathetic magic to it that will change the equilibrium.

Comment author: Tenoke 09 July 2014 11:12:16AM 2 points [-]

That said, Will's claim that he has not upvoted his own posts via sockpuppets is entirely believable.

Fwiw, I am more inclined to believe that he just linked the post to a couple of his friends and/or followers.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2014 12:39:23PM 9 points [-]

I did, actually. They didn't like it.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2014 09:34:01AM 12 points [-]

(Upvoted because transparency is valuable and to be encouraged.)

Will Newsome is a poster with known mental problems and the possibility that he's making fake accounts is one I've considered before.

He almost certainly has or had fake accounts at various times. I think I've even suggested banning him for that violation. That said, Will's claim that he has not upvoted his own posts via sockpuppets is entirely believable. Take action against Will if necessary for whatever other reason (like a track record of active, insane trolling) but if action is taken against him based on the assumption that a positive reception of his contribution must be fake that would be troubling.

and seems like a no-brainer to ban before it happens again.

Making decisions 'no-brainers' is easy if one is willing to disassociate oneself from the consequences.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2014 11:56:13AM *  7 points [-]

He almost certainly has or had fake accounts at various times.

I did. I barely used them, and haven't in a long time. I don't see why that is banworthy or even against community norms; my other accounts all have positive karma and good upvote/downvote ratios, and with one minor exception I used them for the obvious non-antisocial reasons. IIRC you accused me of being TillNoonsome et al, which is false; the real person behind those accounts offered to reveal their identity to clear my name, but I declined, 'cuz at that point there wasn't really any need for it. Also you might have noticed that I haven't engaged in any "insane trolling" for years now. There is no justifiable reason to ban me; the only reason Eliezer would do so is, of course, that he's a punk-ass bitch.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 09 July 2014 11:17:38AM *  6 points [-]

Hey guys, so, I'm dumb and am continuing to attempt to write fiction. I figured I would post an excerpt first this time so people can point out glaring problems before I post anything to Discussion. I've changed some of the premise (as can be seen most obviously in the title); mostly I'm moving away from LessWrong-parody and toward self-parody, mostly because Eliezer's followers are really whiny and it was distracting from the actual ideas I was trying to convey. The premise is now less disingenuous about its basically being a self-insert fic. Also I've tried to incorporate some of the implicit suggestions I received, especially complaints that the first chapter was too in-jokey, pseudo-clever, and insufficiently substantive. This isn't the whole chapter, it's just the first part of a first draft. Criticism appreciated!

Harry Potter-Newsome and the Methods of Postrationality: Chapter Two: Analyzing the Fuck out of an Owl: Excerpt

Harry let out a long sigh and addressed the owl with mocking eyes.

"So, owl. About this 'Hogwarts'. Are there other magical schools out there that I might attend?"

The owl cocked its head. "Why are you asking me? I'm an owl," said the owl in a voice that sounded like an impossibly rapid sequence of hoots.

"Oh come on. We both know you're needed for the exposition."

The owl hooted regretfully. "Fine. Yes, there are other schools. But you should really be asking more interesting questions. Or perhaps I should lead. How did you know to talk to me?"

Harry flashed a look of disappointment. "Although it pains me to say it, I just figured this is the sort of story with talking animals."

"Pray tell, Mr. Potter, why do you think this is a story in the first place? Most humans who think so are what we owls like to call 'batshit insane'."

Harry sighed. This owl is stupid or a troll or both; nonetheless, for the sake of the story, I should probably just go along with it, he thought. "Let's start with the basics. Riddle me this: how on Earth does someone get a lightning-bolt-shaped scar? Have you ever seen a utensil with a suitably shaped prong? Does an otherwise sane mother decide one day that lightning bolt tattoos are just too expensive and so she should carve her infant son's forehead with a kitchen knife?"

The owl glanced at Harry's forehead, and for the first time appeared to be intrigued. "Maybe a neo-Inglorious-Basterd took you as genetically inclined toward Zeus worship and decided they wouldn't let you hide your depraved Paganism so easily."

"I hadn't thought of that," admitted Harry.

"Or perhaps your parents just read way too much Harry Potter."

Harry was distraught. "Harry Potter? What, am I a book now?"

The owl paused for a long moment, somehow grimaced, looked downwards, and placed the tip of its wing on its forehead.

[...]

View more: Prev | Next