My interpretation is that an “Oath of Reply” is only meant to create an obligation to reply if the thing being replied to expects a reply. (Some comments don’t.)
There may be comments that expect a reply but to which actually replying is not helpful (e.g., because they’re some sort of taunting trollery, or because the writer unfortunately makes it clear that they haven’t understood something basic and probably never will). In those cases, though, there is still some value in replying—it lets the other person know that you have paid attention to what they wrote. I would expect someone with an “Oath of Reply” in force to reply to these saying something like “Thanks for your feedback. I don’t expect to be engaging further with this line of argument, because unfortunately I think you have misunderstood my intent so fundamentally that it wouldn’t be helpful.” or “This is the reply I promised, but I think you are trolling and won’t reply to any more of your comments unless something changes my mind on that.” Maybe that’s noise in the sense that it doesn’t add extra information to the main discussion, but I think it’s productive noise in the same sort of way as “please” and “thank you” and other conversational pleasantries are in casual discourse.
So, this seems like a fine policy. But calling it an “oath of reply” feels like it waters down the word “oath” in a way I dislike. (cf. the people who’ve taken the GWWC pledge, and said that if in future they think it’s not a good idea, they’ll just stop doing it.) Especially when the stuff you’ve said should be a universal understanding (around self care, rudeness, circumstances changing) is left implicit. That stuff won’t be universally understood.
As a simple change that I personally would consider an improvement, I’d call it a “reply policy”. A few words making it clear that this not absolute might be good too. Perhaps, for the one you left on this post:
For this post, my reply policy is to respond to top-level comments at least once, absent a specific reason not to, through August 2021. I will likely pursue longer-form discussions. If commenters provide especially helpful feedback, I’ll note it here along with an acknowledgement.
(Possible downside: readers might take that to be weaker than you consider it.)
That’s a good point. I picked the word “oath” intuitively, and I can try to articulate why.
First, “policy” feels more detached and state-ish than I wanted. I wanted a word that conveyed some emotional depth and a spark of human connection.
Also, “policy” has the implication of being explicit in its details, like a law. By contrast, an oath is about building credibility without being specific about what actions to take. Here’s a sample from the Hippocratic Oath:
“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.”
Policies can also have statements like that occasionally, but they are also often extremely detailed and voluminous:
“Employees accrue 2.15 hours of emergency personal time per pay period. On an annual basis, this is the equivalent of 56 hours. Employees may use emergency personal time up to 56 hours.”
But if you want to call yours a policy, more power to you!
gjm expresses it well! I think you’re right that some comments are in a special category of clearly not needing a reply. Maybe there’s a way to briefly acknowledge that the comment has been seen and considered, however.
Maybe there’s a way to briefly acknowledge that the comment has been seen and considered, however.
Emoji replies come to mind. Although 1) I feel like there’s something refreshing about them not being a thing on LessWrong and 2) I think it can be assumed that comments have been seen and considered.
There are ways to do a “message received, thanks” in a few short words. Emojis are annoying in formal settings and convey much less than even just a single short sentence.
Should be consideration/reflection, not reply. Without something interesting/necessary to say, replying is noise.
My interpretation is that an “Oath of Reply” is only meant to create an obligation to reply if the thing being replied to expects a reply. (Some comments don’t.)
There may be comments that expect a reply but to which actually replying is not helpful (e.g., because they’re some sort of taunting trollery, or because the writer unfortunately makes it clear that they haven’t understood something basic and probably never will). In those cases, though, there is still some value in replying—it lets the other person know that you have paid attention to what they wrote. I would expect someone with an “Oath of Reply” in force to reply to these saying something like “Thanks for your feedback. I don’t expect to be engaging further with this line of argument, because unfortunately I think you have misunderstood my intent so fundamentally that it wouldn’t be helpful.” or “This is the reply I promised, but I think you are trolling and won’t reply to any more of your comments unless something changes my mind on that.” Maybe that’s noise in the sense that it doesn’t add extra information to the main discussion, but I think it’s productive noise in the same sort of way as “please” and “thank you” and other conversational pleasantries are in casual discourse.
Thanks for that great response, very in line with my own thinking!
So, this seems like a fine policy. But calling it an “oath of reply” feels like it waters down the word “oath” in a way I dislike. (cf. the people who’ve taken the GWWC pledge, and said that if in future they think it’s not a good idea, they’ll just stop doing it.) Especially when the stuff you’ve said should be a universal understanding (around self care, rudeness, circumstances changing) is left implicit. That stuff won’t be universally understood.
As a simple change that I personally would consider an improvement, I’d call it a “reply policy”. A few words making it clear that this not absolute might be good too. Perhaps, for the one you left on this post:
(Possible downside: readers might take that to be weaker than you consider it.)
That’s a good point. I picked the word “oath” intuitively, and I can try to articulate why.
First, “policy” feels more detached and state-ish than I wanted. I wanted a word that conveyed some emotional depth and a spark of human connection.
Also, “policy” has the implication of being explicit in its details, like a law. By contrast, an oath is about building credibility without being specific about what actions to take. Here’s a sample from the Hippocratic Oath:
“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.”
Policies can also have statements like that occasionally, but they are also often extremely detailed and voluminous:
“Employees accrue 2.15 hours of emergency personal time per pay period. On an annual basis, this is the equivalent of 56 hours. Employees may use emergency personal time up to 56 hours.”
But if you want to call yours a policy, more power to you!
gjm expresses it well! I think you’re right that some comments are in a special category of clearly not needing a reply. Maybe there’s a way to briefly acknowledge that the comment has been seen and considered, however.
Emoji replies come to mind. Although 1) I feel like there’s something refreshing about them not being a thing on LessWrong and 2) I think it can be assumed that comments have been seen and considered.
There are ways to do a “message received, thanks” in a few short words. Emojis are annoying in formal settings and convey much less than even just a single short sentence.