As I write this, the parent comment is at −1 despite the fact that it simply answers a question someone asked. There is something very strange about the voting in this post’s comments.
Someone downvoted your comment as well. Elsewhere in the thread, username2 asserted that Nancy could not be trusted as a moderator. I am pretty sure that comment was negative before, now it is at +4 with 55% positive. So that looks like some kind of vote manipulation.
There are some comments on this post where I wonder about vote manipulation because they seem to have changed score rapidly, some considerable time after posting.
TheAltar’s comment upthread, and my comment on it, don’t seem like examples of that. I think they may be unreasonable downvotes but not improper ones, if you see what I mean. (My reading of the situation is that there are some people on LW who have a strong aversion to anything suggestive of “social justice”, and that that’s responsible for a lot of the downvotes here. E.g., someone suggests that one bit of the OP is endorsing rape or complaining about people getting punished for rape; vocal opposition to rape is a Social Justice Thing and therefore bad in these people’s eyes[1]; and then anything that engages with that without condemning it—e.g., TheAltar’s comment—is guilty by association.)
[1] How could anyone have a problem with vocal opposition to rape? Well, the idea is that the word “rape” gets attached to things that are not rape (e.g., in phrases like “rape culture”, “rape apologist”, etc.) and then those things can get smacked down almost as if they were actual rape, even if they don’t remotely deserve it.
This is a behaviour I have often observed on the scores of comments from Eugine_Nier/Azathoth123/VoiceOfRa/The_Lion. (And, I think, more generally on the scores of “neo-reactionary-friendly” comments[1].) It’s tempting to attribute this to Eugine’s socks, but it could also be that there are a few people of a particular political persuasion who happen to read LW only every few days, and happen to do so in sync.
It might perhaps be worth noting that Lumifer called out Old_Gold as Eugine redivivus practically as soon as he appeared. Make of that what you will.
[1] I don’t like this terminology; perhaps someone can suggest something better. I mean comments that say highly negative things about groups that traditionally have low status but that more recently one is supposed to be positive about and understanding of: those who are female, black, gay, poor, transgender, etc.
I suspect it’s because infrequent old members like myself only check the site every couple of days. I didn’t upvote because the fable was good; I upvoted because I felt the author was being unfairly penalized by the downvoting.
I think it might sense to simply login into username2 to delete any posts made with the account that one doesn’t want to see. Especially in cases like that there no reason to allow Eugine to use the account to make posts about how Nancy isn’t to the trusted.
I don’t think I like the precedent of encouraging people to delete one another’s comments, even though when they’re made via username2 there’s obviously nothing stopping anyone doing so.
I don’t consider the ability of people to post annonymous vile comments via the username2 an important factor of the community. I think community works best when people are accountable for their actions.
You again try to change the subject instead of honestly engaging with content. You labeled deleting comments in the above case as “community should be burned”.
I don’t consider those comments an important part of the community and if the cost of preventing Eugine from continuing to post is getting rid of them that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
You again try to change the subject instead of honestly engaging with content. You labeled deleting comments in the above case as “community should be burned”.
Have you ever noticed I don’t behave this way towards, say, Gwern?
I respond in kind. Be honest and straightforward, and that’s the way I’ll play. Engage in slippery equivocation, and, well...
I don’t consider those comments an important part of the community and if the cost of preventing Eugine from continuing to post is getting rid of them that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
You don’t consider it a price, as you’ve just made clear, so arguing that you’re willing to “pay” that price is disingenuous. Eugine isn’t your reason for doing something you don’t want to do, Eugine is your excuse for doing something you want to do.
Eugine isn’t your reason for doing something you don’t want to do, Eugine is your excuse for doing something you want to do.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action.
Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action. Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
By all means, put it up for a vote, propose it to the rest of the community. See if the community agrees with you that the anonymous account should be shut down to avoid these kinds of issues.
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password. The community didn’t agree then, and created a new one. Engaging in sabotage of the account’s purpose is no better, and perhaps worse, because it’s far harder to recover from. You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
There is a difference between a single known account and a free-for-all, however. (I personally care neither way; the implication that ChristianKI knows what is best for the community, and would force his/her views upon everyone else, however, irritates me.)
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password.
Actually I did put up the question of deleting the old account up for a vote and myself didn’t change the password. Afterwards someone did change the password.
In a case like that I’m not sabotating the features of the account by using them. There no vote indicating that some of those are supposed to be used while others don’t.
You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
The question of what’s harmful is a factual one. It’s not a leadership decision. Deciding what to do does happen to be a leadership decision. In the case of deleting posts everybody of the username2 account everybody has the right to do so. That’s how the account is constructed.
If you disagree with a particular post, feel free to vote it down or argue against it. Till now you haven’t provided an argument why you think my position is wrong besides the strawman of it buring the community.
I’ll dryly note that as soon as I started being specific again, you started equivocating again. You’re not worth the time of arguing with.
For the audience, as I no longer have sufficient respect for my opponent to address him directly:
If ChristianKI’s goal is to prevent Eugine Nier from posting/commenting, this solution fails immediately for reasons that are transparent: Eugine can simply create another account.
Assuming my respected opponent has half a brain cell to him, that motive is off the table as an explanation. He’s stated he sees no value in having an anonymous account, and moreover he called for the deletion of the last one; it’s clear his true motive has nothing to do with Eugine Nier. He asserts his own views and values as being objectively true (“The question of what’s harmful is a factual one.”), equivocates when challenged, is disingenuous about his motives, and promotes sabotage of what the community as a whole regards a useful institution.
Given his attitude towards the use of administrative function to “improve the community” without regard for long-term consequences or precedent, personally I think it would be poetically appropriate to ban him, but I fear that I do, in fact, care about long-term consequences and precedent, so cannot actually advocate that course of action.
So I suggest anybody so inclined to, instead, laugh quietly to themselves over this self-important blowhard. Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my stating that, particularly in that context, so I encourage everybody to laugh at me, as well, because this entire post, and the response to it, is eminently farcical, and deserves to be laughed at.
I’ve seen the votes fluctuate and some posts with odd points counts. The karma amounts do seem to be balancing out into what I would generally expect from LW users over time though.
(The entire thread has slowly moved from −22 to −17 which seems odd.)
As I write this, the parent comment is at −1 despite the fact that it simply answers a question someone asked. There is something very strange about the voting in this post’s comments.
Someone downvoted your comment as well. Elsewhere in the thread, username2 asserted that Nancy could not be trusted as a moderator. I am pretty sure that comment was negative before, now it is at +4 with 55% positive. So that looks like some kind of vote manipulation.
There are some comments on this post where I wonder about vote manipulation because they seem to have changed score rapidly, some considerable time after posting.
TheAltar’s comment upthread, and my comment on it, don’t seem like examples of that. I think they may be unreasonable downvotes but not improper ones, if you see what I mean. (My reading of the situation is that there are some people on LW who have a strong aversion to anything suggestive of “social justice”, and that that’s responsible for a lot of the downvotes here. E.g., someone suggests that one bit of the OP is endorsing rape or complaining about people getting punished for rape; vocal opposition to rape is a Social Justice Thing and therefore bad in these people’s eyes[1]; and then anything that engages with that without condemning it—e.g., TheAltar’s comment—is guilty by association.)
[1] How could anyone have a problem with vocal opposition to rape? Well, the idea is that the word “rape” gets attached to things that are not rape (e.g., in phrases like “rape culture”, “rape apologist”, etc.) and then those things can get smacked down almost as if they were actual rape, even if they don’t remotely deserve it.
EphemeralNight and Old_Gold’s posts seem to have jumped up in votes massively in the last 1-2 days when they were both in the negative iirc.
Old_Gold seems to be Eugine. (My subjective probability is about 70% at this moment.)
EphemeralNight behaves quite differently. If I had to guess, I’d guess that Eugine used his sockpuppets to upvote him.
This is a behaviour I have often observed on the scores of comments from Eugine_Nier/Azathoth123/VoiceOfRa/The_Lion. (And, I think, more generally on the scores of “neo-reactionary-friendly” comments[1].) It’s tempting to attribute this to Eugine’s socks, but it could also be that there are a few people of a particular political persuasion who happen to read LW only every few days, and happen to do so in sync.
It might perhaps be worth noting that Lumifer called out Old_Gold as Eugine redivivus practically as soon as he appeared. Make of that what you will.
[1] I don’t like this terminology; perhaps someone can suggest something better. I mean comments that say highly negative things about groups that traditionally have low status but that more recently one is supposed to be positive about and understanding of: those who are female, black, gay, poor, transgender, etc.
I suspect it’s because infrequent old members like myself only check the site every couple of days. I didn’t upvote because the fable was good; I upvoted because I felt the author was being unfairly penalized by the downvoting.
Doubtful. The differences are large, one-sided, and occurred in a cluster. They also don’t match LW’s general leanings for voters.
I think it might sense to simply login into username2 to delete any posts made with the account that one doesn’t want to see. Especially in cases like that there no reason to allow Eugine to use the account to make posts about how Nancy isn’t to the trusted.
I don’t think I like the precedent of encouraging people to delete one another’s comments, even though when they’re made via username2 there’s obviously nothing stopping anyone doing so.
Do you think it’s fine if Eugine continues to say whatever he wants to say with the username2 account?
Do you think the community should be burned down to ensure Eugine has nowhere to hide?
I don’t consider the ability of people to post annonymous vile comments via the username2 an important factor of the community. I think community works best when people are accountable for their actions.
Then say that instead of blaming the resident bogeyman for your preferences.
You again try to change the subject instead of honestly engaging with content. You labeled deleting comments in the above case as “community should be burned”.
I don’t consider those comments an important part of the community and if the cost of preventing Eugine from continuing to post is getting rid of them that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Have you ever noticed I don’t behave this way towards, say, Gwern?
I respond in kind. Be honest and straightforward, and that’s the way I’ll play. Engage in slippery equivocation, and, well...
You don’t consider it a price, as you’ve just made clear, so arguing that you’re willing to “pay” that price is disingenuous. Eugine isn’t your reason for doing something you don’t want to do, Eugine is your excuse for doing something you want to do.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action. Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
By all means, put it up for a vote, propose it to the rest of the community. See if the community agrees with you that the anonymous account should be shut down to avoid these kinds of issues.
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password. The community didn’t agree then, and created a new one. Engaging in sabotage of the account’s purpose is no better, and perhaps worse, because it’s far harder to recover from. You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
You cannot “shut down” anonymous accounts while maintaining open registration of new accounts.
Anyone can create a new account and make its password be known.
There is a difference between a single known account and a free-for-all, however. (I personally care neither way; the implication that ChristianKI knows what is best for the community, and would force his/her views upon everyone else, however, irritates me.)
Actually I did put up the question of deleting the old account up for a vote and myself didn’t change the password. Afterwards someone did change the password.
In a case like that I’m not sabotating the features of the account by using them. There no vote indicating that some of those are supposed to be used while others don’t.
The question of what’s harmful is a factual one. It’s not a leadership decision. Deciding what to do does happen to be a leadership decision. In the case of deleting posts everybody of the username2 account everybody has the right to do so. That’s how the account is constructed.
If you disagree with a particular post, feel free to vote it down or argue against it. Till now you haven’t provided an argument why you think my position is wrong besides the strawman of it buring the community.
I’ll dryly note that as soon as I started being specific again, you started equivocating again. You’re not worth the time of arguing with.
For the audience, as I no longer have sufficient respect for my opponent to address him directly:
If ChristianKI’s goal is to prevent Eugine Nier from posting/commenting, this solution fails immediately for reasons that are transparent: Eugine can simply create another account.
Assuming my respected opponent has half a brain cell to him, that motive is off the table as an explanation. He’s stated he sees no value in having an anonymous account, and moreover he called for the deletion of the last one; it’s clear his true motive has nothing to do with Eugine Nier. He asserts his own views and values as being objectively true (“The question of what’s harmful is a factual one.”), equivocates when challenged, is disingenuous about his motives, and promotes sabotage of what the community as a whole regards a useful institution.
Given his attitude towards the use of administrative function to “improve the community” without regard for long-term consequences or precedent, personally I think it would be poetically appropriate to ban him, but I fear that I do, in fact, care about long-term consequences and precedent, so cannot actually advocate that course of action.
So I suggest anybody so inclined to, instead, laugh quietly to themselves over this self-important blowhard. Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my stating that, particularly in that context, so I encourage everybody to laugh at me, as well, because this entire post, and the response to it, is eminently farcical, and deserves to be laughed at.
First, I don’t think Eugine is posting as username2. He has zero problems making new accounts and is not shy about expressing his view through them.
Second, a price you are willing to pay or the price you’re willing that everyone pays?
I’ve seen the votes fluctuate and some posts with odd points counts. The karma amounts do seem to be balancing out into what I would generally expect from LW users over time though.
(The entire thread has slowly moved from −22 to −17 which seems odd.)