fwiw I think we’ve considered this sort of idea fairly seriously (I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction. I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it)
I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction.
That does seem plausible (and frustrating).
I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it
I would be very interested to hear from any or all of those people about their opinions on this topic!
I maybe want to specify-in-my-words the version of this I’m most enthusiastic about, to check that you in fact think this version of the thing is fine, rather than a perversion of rationality that should die-in-a-fire and/or not solve any problems you care about:
There are two clusters of norms people choose between. Both emphasize truthseeking, but have different standards for some flavor of politeness, how much effort critics are supposed to put in, Combat vs Nurture, etc. Authors pick a default setting but can change setting for individual posts.
Probably even the more-combaty-one has some kind of floor for basic politeness (you probably don’t want to be literal 4chan?) but not at a level you’d expect to come up very often on LessWrong.
I think the precious thing lost in the Nurture cluster is not Combat, but tolerance for or even encouragement of unapologetic and uncompromising dissent. This is straightforwardly good if it can be instantiated without regularly spawning infinite threads of back-and-forth arguing (unapologetic and uncompromising).
It should be convenient for people who don’t want to participate in that to opt out, and the details of this seem to be the most challenging issue.
Hmmm. I… do not think that this version of the thing is fine.
(I may write more later to elaborate on why I think that. Or maybe this isn’t the ideal place to do that? But I did want to answer your question here, at least.)
Nod. Since it somewhat informs the solution space I’m considering, I think I’ll go ahead and ask here what seem not-fine about it. (Or, maybe to resolve a thing I’m actually confused about, what seems different about this phrasing from what Caerulea said?)
fwiw I think we’ve considered this sort of idea fairly seriously (I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction. I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it)
That does seem plausible (and frustrating).
I would be very interested to hear from any or all of those people about their opinions on this topic!
I maybe want to specify-in-my-words the version of this I’m most enthusiastic about, to check that you in fact think this version of the thing is fine, rather than a perversion of rationality that should die-in-a-fire and/or not solve any problems you care about:
There are two clusters of norms people choose between. Both emphasize truthseeking, but have different standards for some flavor of politeness, how much effort critics are supposed to put in, Combat vs Nurture, etc. Authors pick a default setting but can change setting for individual posts.
Probably even the more-combaty-one has some kind of floor for basic politeness (you probably don’t want to be literal 4chan?) but not at a level you’d expect to come up very often on LessWrong.
There might be different moderators for each one.
Does that sound basically good to you?
I think the precious thing lost in the Nurture cluster is not Combat, but tolerance for or even encouragement of unapologetic and uncompromising dissent. This is straightforwardly good if it can be instantiated without regularly spawning infinite threads of back-and-forth arguing (unapologetic and uncompromising).
It should be convenient for people who don’t want to participate in that to opt out, and the details of this seem to be the most challenging issue.
Hmmm. I… do not think that this version of the thing is fine.
(I may write more later to elaborate on why I think that. Or maybe this isn’t the ideal place to do that? But I did want to answer your question here, at least.)
Nod. Since it somewhat informs the solution space I’m considering, I think I’ll go ahead and ask here what seem not-fine about it. (Or, maybe to resolve a thing I’m actually confused about, what seems different about this phrasing from what Caerulea said?)