I disagree that it is in general unacceptable to post information that you would not like to discuss beyond a certain point.
I would not make (and haven’t made) the claim as you have stated it.
Without further clarification one could reasonably assume that cousin_it was okay with discussing the subject at one removal, as you suggest, but as it happens several days before the great-grandparent cousin_it explicitly stated that it would be upsetting to discuss this topic.
When that is the case—and if I happened to see it before making a contribution—I would refrain from making any direct reply to the user or to discuss him as an instance when talking about the subject (all else being equal). I would still discuss the subject itself using the same criteria for posting that I always use. Mind you I would probably have already have refrained from directly discussing the user due to the aforementioned epistemic absurdity and presumptuousness.
What you claimed was that “It is perfectly acceptable to make a reply to a publicly made comment that was itself freely volunteered”, and that if someone didn’t want to discuss something then they shouldn’t have brought it up. In context, however, this was a reply to me saying it was probably unkind to belabor a subject to someone who’d expressed that they find the subject upsetting, which you now seem to be saying you agree with. So what are you taking issue with? I certainly didn’t mean to imply that if someone finds a subject uncomfortable to discuss, personally, then that means that others should stop discussing it at all, but this point isn’t raised in your great-grandparent comment, and I hope my meaning was clear from the context.
Just wanted to clarify, as at the time your posts had both been downvoted.
So I assumed. As a pure curiosity, if my comments were still downvoted I would have had to downvote yours despite your disclaimer. Not out of reciprocation but because the wedrifid comments being lower than the CuSithBell comments would be an error state and I would have no way to correct the wedrifid votes.
Correct. It is instead something that people should usually say is true because belief or practical assumption that defection is impossible is a better signal to send than that they could easily defect if they wanted to but choose not to.
It does so happen that I am incredibly talented when it comes to automation and have created web bots that are far more advanced than that required to prevent anything I would consider an ‘error state’ in voting patterns, essentially undetectably. It just so happens that I couldn’t really be bothered doing so in the case of lesswrong and have something of an aversion to doing so anyway.
I mean, I’ve already got 20k votes in this game without cheating and without even trying to (by, for example, writing posts.)
Even if we agree to pretend that defection is impossible, you can also correct the wedrifid votes in a socially endorsed way by calling the attention of your allies to the exchange.
I would have no way to correct the wedrifid votes.
If there are viewers of the post who are sufficiently similar to you, they will correct the wedrifid votes. A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
That is a strategy to get votes. If it so happened that wedrifid was particularly different to people here then modifying himself to be more similar to the norm would result in more votes but also more error states. Because all comments of the modified wedrifid that the original wedrifid would have objected to that get upvoted would constitute “error states” from the perspective of the wedrifid making the choice of whether to self modify. ie. Ghandi doesn’t take the murder pill.
Just to be clear, I would not label all instances of wedrifid being downvoted or having less votes than the other person in a conversation as ‘error states’, just that in this specific conversation it would be a bad thing if that were the case. Obviously this is expected to be uncontroversial at least as the expected assumption from my perspective.
(I corrected the conversation’s votes.)
I corrected the conversation’s votes too. Someone downvoted the parent!
I think he means that if the interlocutor votes but you do not then you must get 1 more vote on average from the observers than the interlocutor does.
That assumes you’re conversing with people who desire error states (from your perspective).
That seems true. ie. It assumes a downvote from the interlocutor when their downvote would constitute an error state. Without that assumption the ‘moreso’ is required only by way of creating an error margin.
My conception of error states was a little more general—the advice and assumptions wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
Such conversations happen rather often and I usually find it sufficient reason to discontinue the otherwise useful conversation. The information gained about public perception based on the feedback from observers completely changes what can be said and modifies how any given statement will be interpreted. Too annoying to deal with and a tad offensive. Not necessarily the fault of the interlocutor but the attitudes of the interlocutor’s supporters still necessitates abandoning free conversation or information exchange with them and instead treating the situation as one of social politics.
Well, whatever floats your boat. I wasn’t trying to avoid downvotes, just ill-will.
So I take it you don’t find your issue resolved, but you don’t think it’ll be fruitful to pursue the matter? If that’s the case, sorry to give you that impression.
So I take it you don’t find your issue resolved, but you don’t think it’ll be fruitful to pursue the matter? If that’s the case, sorry to give you that impression.
I didn’t consider it to be an issue that particularly needed to be resolved. It was a five second fire and forget perspective given on your assertion of social norms that was a partial agreement and partial disagreement. The degree of difference is sufficiently minor that if your original injunction had either included the link or somewhat less general wording I would not have even thought it was worth an initial reply.
Sure, sometimes I am known to analyse such nuances in depth but for some reason this one just didn’t catch my interest.
I would not make (and haven’t made) the claim as you have stated it.
When that is the case—and if I happened to see it before making a contribution—I would refrain from making any direct reply to the user or to discuss him as an instance when talking about the subject (all else being equal). I would still discuss the subject itself using the same criteria for posting that I always use. Mind you I would probably have already have refrained from directly discussing the user due to the aforementioned epistemic absurdity and presumptuousness.
What you claimed was that “It is perfectly acceptable to make a reply to a publicly made comment that was itself freely volunteered”, and that if someone didn’t want to discuss something then they shouldn’t have brought it up. In context, however, this was a reply to me saying it was probably unkind to belabor a subject to someone who’d expressed that they find the subject upsetting, which you now seem to be saying you agree with. So what are you taking issue with? I certainly didn’t mean to imply that if someone finds a subject uncomfortable to discuss, personally, then that means that others should stop discussing it at all, but this point isn’t raised in your great-grandparent comment, and I hope my meaning was clear from the context.
ETA: I have not voted on your comments here.
I have not voted here either. As of now the conversation is all at “0” which is how I would prefer it.
Just wanted to clarify, as at the time your posts had both been downvoted.
So I assumed. As a pure curiosity, if my comments were still downvoted I would have had to downvote yours despite your disclaimer. Not out of reciprocation but because the wedrifid comments being lower than the CuSithBell comments would be an error state and I would have no way to correct the wedrifid votes.
That isn’t actually true.
Correct. It is instead something that people should usually say is true because belief or practical assumption that defection is impossible is a better signal to send than that they could easily defect if they wanted to but choose not to.
It does so happen that I am incredibly talented when it comes to automation and have created web bots that are far more advanced than that required to prevent anything I would consider an ‘error state’ in voting patterns, essentially undetectably. It just so happens that I couldn’t really be bothered doing so in the case of lesswrong and have something of an aversion to doing so anyway.
I mean, I’ve already got 20k votes in this game without cheating and without even trying to (by, for example, writing posts.)
Even if we agree to pretend that defection is impossible, you can also correct the wedrifid votes in a socially endorsed way by calling the attention of your allies to the exchange.
If there are viewers of the post who are sufficiently similar to you, they will correct the wedrifid votes. A strategy to ensure error states get corrected is to be sufficiently similar to more post-viewers than your interlocutor.
(I corrected the conversation’s votes.)
That is a strategy to get votes. If it so happened that wedrifid was particularly different to people here then modifying himself to be more similar to the norm would result in more votes but also more error states. Because all comments of the modified wedrifid that the original wedrifid would have objected to that get upvoted would constitute “error states” from the perspective of the wedrifid making the choice of whether to self modify. ie. Ghandi doesn’t take the murder pill.
Just to be clear, I would not label all instances of wedrifid being downvoted or having less votes than the other person in a conversation as ‘error states’, just that in this specific conversation it would be a bad thing if that were the case. Obviously this is expected to be uncontroversial at least as the expected assumption from my perspective.
I corrected the conversation’s votes too. Someone downvoted the parent!
Ah, that was the false assumption I made. Cheers!
To be sure, most would be. But I’m sure in all the comments I’ve made over the years there is at least one that I would downvote in hindsight! ;)
Why moreso than your interlocutor? That assumes you’re conversing with people who desire error states (from your perspective).
I think he means that if the interlocutor votes but you do not then you must get 1 more vote on average from the observers than the interlocutor does.
That seems true. ie. It assumes a downvote from the interlocutor when their downvote would constitute an error state. Without that assumption the ‘moreso’ is required only by way of creating an error margin.
My conception of error states was a little more general—the advice and assumptions wouldn’t apply to, say, a conversation which both participants find valuable, but in which one or both are downvoted by observers.
Such conversations happen rather often and I usually find it sufficient reason to discontinue the otherwise useful conversation. The information gained about public perception based on the feedback from observers completely changes what can be said and modifies how any given statement will be interpreted. Too annoying to deal with and a tad offensive. Not necessarily the fault of the interlocutor but the attitudes of the interlocutor’s supporters still necessitates abandoning free conversation or information exchange with them and instead treating the situation as one of social politics.
Well, whatever floats your boat. I wasn’t trying to avoid downvotes, just ill-will.
So I take it you don’t find your issue resolved, but you don’t think it’ll be fruitful to pursue the matter? If that’s the case, sorry to give you that impression.
I didn’t consider it to be an issue that particularly needed to be resolved. It was a five second fire and forget perspective given on your assertion of social norms that was a partial agreement and partial disagreement. The degree of difference is sufficiently minor that if your original injunction had either included the link or somewhat less general wording I would not have even thought it was worth an initial reply.
Sure, sometimes I am known to analyse such nuances in depth but for some reason this one just didn’t catch my interest.
All right, that’s cool then. Cheerio!