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.
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.