I am not sure what you mean, didn’t Ray respond on the same day that you tagged him?
I haven’t read the details of all of the threads, but I interpreted your comment here as “the mod team ignored your call for clarification” as opposed to “the mod team did respond to your call for clarification basically immediately, but there was some <unspecified issue> with it”.
He responded to say ~”I don’t like this much but we’re not gonna do anything.”
EDIT: to elaborate, Ray actually put quite a bit of effort into a back and forth with Said, and eventually asked him to stop commenting/put a pause on the whole conversation. But there wasn’t any “this thing that Said was doing before I showed up is not clearing the bar for LW.”
EDIT: to elaborate, Ray actually put quite a bit of effort into a back and forth with Said, and eventually asked him to stop commenting/put a pause on the whole conversation. But there wasn’t any “this thing that Said was doing before I showed up is not clearing the bar for LW.”
Yeah, I think Ray is currently working on figuring out what the actual norms here should be, which I do think just takes awhile. Ideally we would have a moderation philosophy pinned down in which the judgement here is obvious, but as moderation disputes go, a common pattern is if people disagree with a moderation philosophy, they tend to go right up to the edge of the clear rules you have established (in a way I don’t really think is inherently bad, in domains where I disagree with the law I also tend to go right up to the edge of what it allows).
This seems like one of those cases, where my sense is there is a bunch of relatively deep disagreement about character and spirit of LessWrong, and people are going right up to the edge of what’s allowed, and disputing those edge-cases almost always tends to require multiple days of thought. My model of you thinks that things were pretty clearly over your line, though indeed my sense is Said’s behavior was more optimized to go up to the line of the rules we had set previously, and wasn’t that optimized to not cross your lines.
It’s plausible there is some meta-level principle here about line-toeing, but I am not even confident line-toeing is going on here, and I have a bunch of complicated meta thoughts on how to handle line-toeing (one of which is that if you try to prevent line-toeing, people will toe the line of ambiguity of whether they are toeing lines, which makes everything really confusing).
That does not seem like an accurate summary of this comment?
My current take is “this thread seems pretty bad overall and I wish everyone would stop, but I don’t have an easy succinct articulation of why and what the overall moderation policy is for things like this.” I’m trying to mostly focus on actually resolving a giant backlog of new users who need to be reviewed while thinking about our new policies, but expect to respond to this sometime in the next few days.
What I will say immediately to @Said Achmiz is “This point of this thread is not to prosecute your specific complaints about Duncan. Duncan banning you is the current moderation policy working as intended. If you want to argue about that, you should be directing your arguments at the LessWrong team, and you should be trying to identify and address our cruxes.”
I have more to say about this but it gets into an effortcomment that I want to allocate more time/attention to.
I’d note: I do think it’s an okay time to open up Said’s longstanding disagreements with LW moderation policy, but, like, all the previous arguments still apply. Said’s comments so far haven’t added new information we didn’t already consider.
I think it is better to start a new thread rather than engaging in this one, because this thread seems to be doing a weird mix of arguing moderation-abstract-policies while also trying to prosecute one particular case in a way that feels off.
He said pretty clearly “I am dealing with a backlog of users so won’t give this the full response it deserves until a few days later” (which is right now). It also responded pretty clearly to a bunch of the object-level.
I think it’s fine for you to say you didn’t feel helped immediately, or something, but I really don’t think characterizing Ray’s response as “not doing anything” is remotely accurate. My guess is he has spent on the order of 20 hours on this conflict in the last week, with probably another 10-15 hours from both Ruby and Robert, resulting at least thousands, possible tens-of-thousands of words written publicly by now. Again, it might be the case that somehow those moderation comments didn’t align with your preferences, but I do sure think it counts as “clarifying whether this is something we want happening on LessWrong” which was your literal request.
I am not sure what you mean, didn’t Ray respond on the same day that you tagged him?
I haven’t read the details of all of the threads, but I interpreted your comment here as “the mod team ignored your call for clarification” as opposed to “the mod team did respond to your call for clarification basically immediately, but there was some <unspecified issue> with it”.
He responded to say ~”I don’t like this much but we’re not gonna do anything.”EDIT: to elaborate, Ray actually put quite a bit of effort into a back and forth with Said, and eventually asked him to stop commenting/put a pause on the whole conversation. But there wasn’t any “this thing that Said was doing before I showed up is not clearing the bar for LW.”
Yeah, I think Ray is currently working on figuring out what the actual norms here should be, which I do think just takes awhile. Ideally we would have a moderation philosophy pinned down in which the judgement here is obvious, but as moderation disputes go, a common pattern is if people disagree with a moderation philosophy, they tend to go right up to the edge of the clear rules you have established (in a way I don’t really think is inherently bad, in domains where I disagree with the law I also tend to go right up to the edge of what it allows).
This seems like one of those cases, where my sense is there is a bunch of relatively deep disagreement about character and spirit of LessWrong, and people are going right up to the edge of what’s allowed, and disputing those edge-cases almost always tends to require multiple days of thought. My model of you thinks that things were pretty clearly over your line, though indeed my sense is Said’s behavior was more optimized to go up to the line of the rules we had set previously, and wasn’t that optimized to not cross your lines.
It’s plausible there is some meta-level principle here about line-toeing, but I am not even confident line-toeing is going on here, and I have a bunch of complicated meta thoughts on how to handle line-toeing (one of which is that if you try to prevent line-toeing, people will toe the line of ambiguity of whether they are toeing lines, which makes everything really confusing).
That does not seem like an accurate summary of this comment?
He said pretty clearly “I am dealing with a backlog of users so won’t give this the full response it deserves until a few days later” (which is right now). It also responded pretty clearly to a bunch of the object-level.
I think it’s fine for you to say you didn’t feel helped immediately, or something, but I really don’t think characterizing Ray’s response as “not doing anything” is remotely accurate. My guess is he has spent on the order of 20 hours on this conflict in the last week, with probably another 10-15 hours from both Ruby and Robert, resulting at least thousands, possible tens-of-thousands of words written publicly by now. Again, it might be the case that somehow those moderation comments didn’t align with your preferences, but I do sure think it counts as “clarifying whether this is something we want happening on LessWrong” which was your literal request.
Yeah, as you were typing this I was also typing an edit. My apologies, Ray, for the off-the-cuff wrong summary.
Cool, no problem.