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.
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.