(2) Bear in mind the selection effect of who reads, votes, and replies to a thread on a given topic. Last year’s survey showed more people who had decided to forgo cryonics than signed up for preservation by a factor of sixteen.
(3) You are not yet a sufficiently impressive figure within this community to induce people to reconsider their judgments merely by expressing disapproval.
Don’t delete, ban or otherwise punish critics, would be my recommendation. Critics often bear unpopular messages. The only group I have ever participated in where critics were treated properly is the security/cryptographic community. There, if someone bothers to criticise something, if anything they are thanked for their input.
I don’t perceive a big difference between the crypto community and LW here. Do you have an example in mind of someone who speaks to the wider crypto community with the same tone that SamAdams speaks to us, but who is treated as a valued contributor?
Don’t delete, ban or otherwise punish critics, would be my recommendation. Critics often bear unpopular messages.
“Critic” is not a very useful category, moderation-wise. What matters is quality of argument, not implied conclusions, so an inane supporter of the group should be banned as readily as an inane defector, and there seems to be little value in keeping inane contributors around, whether “critics” or not.
(1) We are aware. There are important reasons for keeping a moderation system anyway. Practical suggestions for rational groupthink-alleviating measures would be appreciated, although possibly not implemented.
(2) Bear in mind the selection effect of who reads, votes, and replies to a thread on a given topic. Last year’s survey showed more people who had decided to forgo cryonics than signed up for preservation by a factor of sixteen.
(3) You are not yet a sufficiently impressive figure within this community to induce people to reconsider their judgments merely by expressing disapproval.
Re: “Rational groupthink-alleviating measures”
Don’t delete, ban or otherwise punish critics, would be my recommendation. Critics often bear unpopular messages. The only group I have ever participated in where critics were treated properly is the security/cryptographic community. There, if someone bothers to criticise something, if anything they are thanked for their input.
I don’t perceive a big difference between the crypto community and LW here. Do you have an example in mind of someone who speaks to the wider crypto community with the same tone that SamAdams speaks to us, but who is treated as a valued contributor?
I haven’t looked closely at the case of SamAdams.
“Critic” is not a very useful category, moderation-wise. What matters is quality of argument, not implied conclusions, so an inane supporter of the group should be banned as readily as an inane defector, and there seems to be little value in keeping inane contributors around, whether “critics” or not.