Another advantage of an approach like that is Eugine could be asked as part of staying on site to go through and reverse all of his own downvotes.
I have a major problem with this approach. He believes those downvotes are merited. Attempting to compell him to act against that conviction would be...well, Very Not Cool with me.
Let me see if I have this straight. You would not want to “compel” Eugine to choose between being banned and reversing votes, but you are OK with him being compelled to not post on the site any more ever again without having a choice?
It makes sense to me. Error is okay with preventing someone from acting when those actions have been shown to have negative consequences (driving people away from this site), but objects to the idea of someone being pressured to explicitly act against his convictions.
This is the correct interpretation, yes. I have similar issues with things like forced apologies. In general I hold compulsion to a much higher bar than restraint.
Compulsion: I suggested offering Eugine the choice of leaving the site or behaving according to the finally-defined rules. I’m pretty sure it is the choice we all have.
Restraint: I have a choice of posting here and following the rules and norms or not. You have that choice also. How is it restraint if we offer the same choice to Eugine?
Act against convictions: At no point did I suggest that Eugine must agree or state he agrees that he shouldn’t have downvoted people. I’ll state myself without much fear of banning that I don’t agree he shouldn’t have downvoted people. But it is NOT against my convictions to behave in a certain way in order to participate with other people in something. It is NOT against my convictions to follow rules which are not precisely what I would have defined. I am offering the same choice to Eugine.
As things stand now, from what has been stated, Eugine has not been offered a choice, he is being compelled to not participate. If he has been offered a choice, and he has chosen to not participate, we have not been told that, and for someone such as myself, that would be a very different outcome from one as described on its face, where a previously undefined rule is used for permanent banning ex post facto.
I’ll leave it at this, amazed that what seems so incredibly clear to me is the opposite of what at least 4 others (assuming no sock puppets involved in voting) on this site.
I wonder what a CEV made from the 3 of us in this conversation would wind up looking like when it comes to these values. Would it come down to majority rules?
Act against convictions: At no point did I suggest that Eugine must agree or state he agrees that he shouldn’t have downvoted people.
No, but you did suggest that he might be asked to take action to explicitly reverse the effects of downvoting people:
Eugine could be asked as part of staying on site to go through and reverse all of his own downvotes.
I would agree that merely asking him to refrain from mass downvoting would not constitute pressure to act against his convictions; however, asking him to reverse his previous downvotes would.
As things stand now, from what has been stated, Eugine has not been offered a choice, he is being compelled to not participate.
Yes; he is being compelled to take the null action. The ability to post a comment on a given web site is not a right that can be fought for—it is a privilege that is extended at the whim of the administrators and moderators of the website in question. Removing that privilege from someone who has shown a pattern of abusing it does not seem unfair.
I wonder what a CEV made from the 3 of us in this conversation would wind up looking like when it comes to these values. Would it come down to majority rules?
Hmmm… it would probably be more complicated than that. I highly value the ability to express one’s true opinions, and in case of trouble I prefer to minimise damage if possible. I highly disvalue social pressure to express, through words or actions, an opinion different to one’s own as if it were one’s own.
It seems that you highly value freedom of choice, and are willing to accept a compromise in the opinions you express as long as you have the option of choosing that compromise. It also appears that, in case of trouble, you prefer to give other actors the chance to self-modify to reduce future trouble, and highly disvalue removing the freedom of choice from someone.
I think Error’s values may be closer to mine than yours; I don’t see, in this conversation, any major differences between myself and him (probably mainly because we agree on the correct action in this situation)
If you put all of those together, I think you’ll end up with a values function that highly values both freedom of choice and freedom of expressed opinion (both important freedoms) - but which of those two would be the most highly valued I cannot say (due to insufficient information).
I think the reason he finds it Very Not Cool is that compelling Eugene to reverse the downvotes is basically trying to blackmail him into admitting that he was wrong, which he presumably doesn’t believe, so you would be forcing him into lying (as well as renouncing beliefs that he presumably holds relatively strongly). I agree with the grandparent that this would be a bad thing to do.
Let me see if I have this straight. You would not want to “compel” Eugine to choose between being banned and reversing votes, but you are OK with him being compelled to not post on the site any more ever again without having a choice?
Please tell me I drastically misunderstood you.
It makes sense to me. Error is okay with preventing someone from acting when those actions have been shown to have negative consequences (driving people away from this site), but objects to the idea of someone being pressured to explicitly act against his convictions.
This is the correct interpretation, yes. I have similar issues with things like forced apologies. In general I hold compulsion to a much higher bar than restraint.
Compulsion? Restraint? Act against convictions?
Compulsion: I suggested offering Eugine the choice of leaving the site or behaving according to the finally-defined rules. I’m pretty sure it is the choice we all have.
Restraint: I have a choice of posting here and following the rules and norms or not. You have that choice also. How is it restraint if we offer the same choice to Eugine?
Act against convictions: At no point did I suggest that Eugine must agree or state he agrees that he shouldn’t have downvoted people. I’ll state myself without much fear of banning that I don’t agree he shouldn’t have downvoted people. But it is NOT against my convictions to behave in a certain way in order to participate with other people in something. It is NOT against my convictions to follow rules which are not precisely what I would have defined. I am offering the same choice to Eugine.
As things stand now, from what has been stated, Eugine has not been offered a choice, he is being compelled to not participate. If he has been offered a choice, and he has chosen to not participate, we have not been told that, and for someone such as myself, that would be a very different outcome from one as described on its face, where a previously undefined rule is used for permanent banning ex post facto.
I’ll leave it at this, amazed that what seems so incredibly clear to me is the opposite of what at least 4 others (assuming no sock puppets involved in voting) on this site.
I wonder what a CEV made from the 3 of us in this conversation would wind up looking like when it comes to these values. Would it come down to majority rules?
No, but you did suggest that he might be asked to take action to explicitly reverse the effects of downvoting people:
I would agree that merely asking him to refrain from mass downvoting would not constitute pressure to act against his convictions; however, asking him to reverse his previous downvotes would.
Yes; he is being compelled to take the null action. The ability to post a comment on a given web site is not a right that can be fought for—it is a privilege that is extended at the whim of the administrators and moderators of the website in question. Removing that privilege from someone who has shown a pattern of abusing it does not seem unfair.
Hmmm… it would probably be more complicated than that. I highly value the ability to express one’s true opinions, and in case of trouble I prefer to minimise damage if possible. I highly disvalue social pressure to express, through words or actions, an opinion different to one’s own as if it were one’s own.
It seems that you highly value freedom of choice, and are willing to accept a compromise in the opinions you express as long as you have the option of choosing that compromise. It also appears that, in case of trouble, you prefer to give other actors the chance to self-modify to reduce future trouble, and highly disvalue removing the freedom of choice from someone.
I think Error’s values may be closer to mine than yours; I don’t see, in this conversation, any major differences between myself and him (probably mainly because we agree on the correct action in this situation)
If you put all of those together, I think you’ll end up with a values function that highly values both freedom of choice and freedom of expressed opinion (both important freedoms) - but which of those two would be the most highly valued I cannot say (due to insufficient information).
I think the reason he finds it Very Not Cool is that compelling Eugene to reverse the downvotes is basically trying to blackmail him into admitting that he was wrong, which he presumably doesn’t believe, so you would be forcing him into lying (as well as renouncing beliefs that he presumably holds relatively strongly). I agree with the grandparent that this would be a bad thing to do.