Again, just chiming in, leaving the actual decision up to Ray:
My current take here is indeed that Said’s hypothesis, taking fully literal and within your frame was quite confused and bad.
But also, like, people’s frames, especially in the domain of adversarial actions, hugely differ, and I’ve in the past been surprised by the degree to which some people’s frames, despite seeming insane and gaslighty to me at first turned out to be quite valuable. Most concretely I have in my internal monologue indeed basically fully shifted towards using “lying” and “deception” the way Zack, Benquo and Jessica are using it, because their concept seems to carve reality at its joints much better than my previous concept of lying and deception. This despite me telling them many times that their usage of those terms is quite adversarial and gaslighty.
My current model is that when Said was talking about the preference he ascribes to you, there is a bunch of miscommunication going on, and I probably also have deep disagreements with his underlying model, but I have updated against trying to stamp down on that kind of stuff super hard, even if it sounds quite adversarial to me on first glance.
This might be crazy, and maybe making this a moderation policy would give rise to all kinds of accusations thrown around and a ton of goodwill being destroyed, but I currently generally feel more excited about exploring different people’s accusations of adversarialness in a bunch of depth, even if they seem unlikely on the face of it. This is definitely also partially driven by my thoughts on FTX, and trying to somehow create a space where more uncharitable/adversarial accusations could have been brought up somehow.
But this is really all very off-the-cuff and I have thought about this specific situation and the relevant thread much less than Ray and Ruby have, so I am currently leaving the detailed decisions up to them. But seemed potentially useful to give some of my models here.
Again, just chiming in, leaving the actual decision up to Ray:
My current take here is indeed that Said’s hypothesis, taking fully literal and within your frame was quite confused and bad.
But also, like, people’s frames, especially in the domain of adversarial actions, hugely differ, and I’ve in the past been surprised by the degree to which some people’s frames, despite seeming insane and gaslighty to me at first turned out to be quite valuable. Most concretely I have in my internal monologue indeed basically fully shifted towards using “lying” and “deception” the way Zack, Benquo and Jessica are using it, because their concept seems to carve reality at its joints much better than my previous concept of lying and deception. This despite me telling them many times that their usage of those terms is quite adversarial and gaslighty.
My current model is that when Said was talking about the preference he ascribes to you, there is a bunch of miscommunication going on, and I probably also have deep disagreements with his underlying model, but I have updated against trying to stamp down on that kind of stuff super hard, even if it sounds quite adversarial to me on first glance.
This might be crazy, and maybe making this a moderation policy would give rise to all kinds of accusations thrown around and a ton of goodwill being destroyed, but I currently generally feel more excited about exploring different people’s accusations of adversarialness in a bunch of depth, even if they seem unlikely on the face of it. This is definitely also partially driven by my thoughts on FTX, and trying to somehow create a space where more uncharitable/adversarial accusations could have been brought up somehow.
But this is really all very off-the-cuff and I have thought about this specific situation and the relevant thread much less than Ray and Ruby have, so I am currently leaving the detailed decisions up to them. But seemed potentially useful to give some of my models here.