I tried to sign up (same username as LW), but when I try to log in I just get an error.

In large formal groups: Robert's Rules of Order.

Large organizations, and organizations which have to remain unified despite bitter disagreements, developed social technologies such as RRoO. These typically feature meetings that have formal, pre-specified agendas plus a chairperson who is responsible for making sure each person has a chance to speak in an orderly fashion. Of course, RRoO are overkill for a small group with plenty of goodwill toward each other.

In small formal groups: Nonce agendas and rotating speakers

The best-organized small meetings I've ever attended were organized by the local anarchists. They were an independently-minded and fierce-willed bunch who did not much agree but who had common interests, which to my mind suggests that the method they used might be effectively adapted for use in LW meetups. They used the following method, sometimes with variations appropriate to the circumstances:

1. Before and after the formal part of the meeting is informal social time.
2. Call the meeting to order. Make any reminders the group needs and any explanatory announcements that newcomers would want to know, such as these rules.
3. Pass around a clipboard for people to write agenda items down. All that is needed are a few words identifying the topic. (People can add to the agenda later, too, if they think of something belatedly.)
4. Start with first agenda item. Discuss it (see below) until people are done with it. Then move on to the next agenda item. In discussing an agenda item, start with whoever added it to the agenda, and then proceed around the circle giving everyone a chance to talk.
5. Whoever's turn it is, they not only get to speak, but they are the temporary chairperson also. If it helps, they can have a "talking stick" or "hot potato" or some physical object reminding everyone that it's their turn. They can ask questions for others to answer without giving up the talking stick. If you want to interrupt the speaker, you can raise your hand and they can call on you without giving up the talking stick.
6. Any other necessary interruptions are handled by someone saying "point of order", briefly stating what they want, and the group votes on whether to do it.

In small informal groups: Natural leaders

Sometimes people have an aversion to groups that are structured in any manner they aren't already familiar and comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that. You can approximate the above structure by having the more vocal members facilitate the conversation:

• Within a conversation on a topic, deliberately ask people who aren't as talkative what they think about the topic.
• When the conversation winds down on a topic, deliberately ask someone what's on their mind. Be sure to let everyone have a chance.
• Tactfully interrupt people who are too fond of their own voices, and attempt to pass the speaker-role to someone else.

Scott Alexander.

Upvoted to encourage more people to ask LW for help in this way, which I think is good trend. But I would suggest a title that describes more specifically what the post is about (i.e. "LW, help me with my migraines" or something).

I have no advice on the migraines themselves but I wish you luck.

I usually try to mix it up. A quick count shows 6 male examples and 2 female examples, which was not a deliberate choice, but I guess I can be more intentional about a more even split in future?

1) Will its name be another pun on "Less Wrong", like it happened with More Right?

2) I still don't understand why it wouldn't simply be easier to create more subreddits for LW on different discussion topics, like it has been proposed a billion times in the past, as opposed to more and more websites springing up.

Why doesn't your list of "things I've considered" include an option like, "Nutrition science is real science, and Campbell's work is correct"?

I hate disqus. It's hard to keep track of what you're read or haven't read, and since it doesn't load all comments automatically, it's inconvenient to search.

Amelia paused. "There's a possibility that Augustus Rookwood left a ghost -"

"Exorcise it before anyone talks to it," Harry said, conscious of the sudden hammering of his heart.

"Yes, sir," the old witch said dryly. "I shall disrupt the soul's anchoring a little, and none shall be the wiser when it fails to materialize. The second matter is that there was a still-living human arm found among the Dark Lord's things -"

This seems like Amelia misplaying her cards for no good reason. I would expect her first to ask Harry what the ghost would tell her before accepting that she prevents the ghost from anchoring. Especially if she wants to test Harry political skills it would make sense to push him harder.

I think this is an interesting idea and I am intrigued by most of the applications.

The parenting one, though, seems kind of insane unless you terminate it at age 18, but most people just don't earn much before 18 so it wouldn't have very much effect. If you don't terminate it at age 18, you've effectively extended the age of legal childhood up through the point at which it does terminate; parents will continue to have cause to nag and berate their children long into adulthood, and they will. Even if you give them no legal right to control their children, you will have given them -- in both their children's eyes and their own -- a moral right to do so.

The relationship between a parent and a child has a MASSIVE power imbalance. You suggest that you might prohibit the situation where someone's output is part-owned by their employer -- presumably for that reason -- and you similarly should not let it be owned by their parent.