calling upon various fictional deities for whom I have great respect.

Just curious... can you clarify this statement? It sounds a lot like Chaos Magick to me, and that surprises me, coming from you (not necessarily in a bad way).

People who don't want a regularly-occurring exception.

The entertaining thing from my perspective is that the discussions here have been polite, informative, and honest, and overall I'd consider them to have been productive thus far. It is of course possible that the tone or nature of these debates will change over time, but it seems on current evidence to be that a lot of people are mindkilled about whether or not politics is in fact a mindkiller. Granted, the voting system here generally encourages controversy - fifty votes yay and forty nine votes nay is better than an uninteresting post with one vote nay, after all.

but this regularly-occuring thread is supposed to be an accepted exception, isn't it?

What do you mean by that? Supposed on what grounds, accepted by whom and in what sense? (There's also a distinction between following a rule and agreeing with it, and there is no rule in this case.)

Just curious... who is downvoting this post, and why? Politics is the mind killer, I know... but this regularly-occuring thread is supposed to be an accepted exception, isn't it?

It's just that the same goes for "Include everyone except fundamentalist Christians."

There is no clear bright line determining who is or is not a fundamentalist Christian. Right now, there pretty much is a clear bright line determining who is or is not human. And that clear bright line encompasses everyone we would possibly want to cooperate with.

Your advisory board suggestion ignores the fact that we have to be able to cooperate prior to the invention of CEV deducers.

And you're not describing a process for how the advisory board is decided either. Different advisory boards may produce different groups of enfranchised minds. So your suggestion doesn't resolve the problem.

In fact, I don't see how putting a group of minds on the advisory board is any different than just making them the input to the CEV. If a person's CEV is that someone's mind should contribute to the optimizer's target, that will be their CEV regardless of whether it's measured in an advisory board context or not.

Seconding methylphenidate for #2, and (specifically) delta-wave-inducing binaural beats for #3.

I've heard good things about weed + Adderall for creative production, but never tried it.

the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.

On the other hand, look at your alternate hypothesis. Eliezer found your comment, read it, decided he wanted to get rid of it, noticed that you committed a censorable offense elsewhere in the thread, and deleted the thread, all within 60 seconds of you posting it. This does not sound much more plausible than him noticing that your thread broke the rules, and censoring it for that reason, at about the same time your accused him of dishonesty in it.

And now allow me to address the prior probability of your hypothesis: When Eliezer announced the censorship policy, he indicated that several posts that could be seen as borderline, and which did not criticize Eliezer at all, would be subject to the policy. Given that evidence, it would be absolutely shocking if he did not censor your post once it was pointed out that you broke the advocating violence rule, whether or not you accused him of dishonesty.

Agreed. That was my original intention, but I didn't realize that deletion of the thread would eliminate the entire record of the sequence of events. I'm sure such a highly-granular log could be produced by the mods though. Mods? You reading this? (rhetorical question... we all know you are).

Your deleted post and all your deleted comments (with timestamps) are still accessible. Just click on your username on the top right.

You present your table of results as if it is uncontroversial data based on which a reasonable unbiased person would draw the conclusion that the deletion was caused by the accusation of dishonesty. But the table already smuggles in your preferred causal hypothesis, representing the deletion as a reponse to the accusation.

A better way to present the data would be to have a column for your actions, and then a second column giving the amount of time between that action and the deletion. By your account, the deletion occurred about a day after you posted trollish comments and 60 seconds after you accused EY of dishonesty. You obviously think it is much more likely that the mods will act immediately than that they will act with a one-day lag, but I don't buy this, especially considering the fact that the one day during which the post wasn't deleted was Christmas. The mods reading, processing and deleting a thread based on a comment within 60 seconds of posting seems less likely to me than the mods not having noticed the multiple violations in that thread until the day after Christmas and deleting based on those violations.

Moreover, even if I concede that the likelihoods skew the other way, my prior for the "deleted due to violations of policy" hypothesis is substantially greater than my prior for the "deleted in a fit of pique" hypothesis, so even a greater likelihood for the latter hypothesis doesn't imply a greater posterior.

I would have preferred if you had simply stated that you suspect the deletion was due to your accusation of dishonesty. I would have disagreed, but wouldn't have downvoted. But I don't like the fact that you've constructed this pseudo-rational argument aimed at convincing us that your causal hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. So downvoted.

Downvoted for bragging about trolling here - that's not something I want to see encouraged.

It's also a form of dishonesty to request public feedback on a policy issue, then systematically ignore all feedback that disagrees with your predetermined decision.

Come on, his "request for public feedback" was explicitly phrased as only asking for things he didn't know:

In other words, the form of this discussion is not 'Do you like this?' - you probably have a different cost function from people who are held responsible for how LW looks as a whole - but rather, 'Are there any predictable consequences we didn't think of that you would like to point out, and possibly bet on with us if there's a good way to settle the bet?'

... in other words, he was warning you that if all you do was whine about how "censorship" was a word with negative connotations, he was going to ignore you because he was well aware of that. Nothing dishonest there.