Please check out my other comments on this thread before replying, as it sounds like my reasoning isn’t fully clear to you.
Re: policing an online community I agree that there a lot of options to consider about how LW should be run, and that if people don’t like EY deleting their posts they’re free to try and set up their own LW in parallel. I don’t think it would be a good thing, or something we should encourage, but I agree it’s an option.
I also agree that some policing can help prevent a negative community from developing—that’s one reason I was glad to see that LW went with the reddit platform. It’s great at policing. I think it’s a big part of what makes LW is so successful.
That said, I also think that users should try other options rather than simply giving up on LW if they don’t like what’s going on. That’s what I’m doing here.
Re: 0.0001% You didn’t misunderstand me about the whole post deletion thing. To my mind 0.0001% isn’t that much compared to what the post deletion means about the future of LW. All this cloak-and-dagger silliness hurts the community. I’m doing my part to avoid further damage.
No one is going to delete it (I think? :p), so it doesn’t really matter either way.
To my mind 0.0001% isn’t that much compared to what the post deletion means about the future of LW.
You’re threatening to on average kill at least 6000 people, in order to get the moderation policy you prefer. You’re also not completely insensitive to how people appear to others. Would you like to reconsider how you’ve been going about achieving your aims?
I find it hard to relate to the way of thinking of someone who’s willing to increase the chances that humanity goes extinct if someone deletes his post from a forum on the internet.
Please go find another community to “help” with this kind of blackmail.
If I understand him correctly, what he’s trying to do is to precommit to doing something which increases ER, iff EY does something that he (wfg) believes will increase ER by a greater amount. Now he may or may not be correct in that belief, but it seems clear that his motivation is to decrease net ER by disincentivizing something he views as increasing ER.
Hey Emile,
Please check out my other comments on this thread before replying, as it sounds like my reasoning isn’t fully clear to you.
Re: policing an online community I agree that there a lot of options to consider about how LW should be run, and that if people don’t like EY deleting their posts they’re free to try and set up their own LW in parallel. I don’t think it would be a good thing, or something we should encourage, but I agree it’s an option.
I also agree that some policing can help prevent a negative community from developing—that’s one reason I was glad to see that LW went with the reddit platform. It’s great at policing. I think it’s a big part of what makes LW is so successful.
That said, I also think that users should try other options rather than simply giving up on LW if they don’t like what’s going on. That’s what I’m doing here.
Re: 0.0001% You didn’t misunderstand me about the whole post deletion thing. To my mind 0.0001% isn’t that much compared to what the post deletion means about the future of LW. All this cloak-and-dagger silliness hurts the community. I’m doing my part to avoid further damage.
No one is going to delete it (I think? :p), so it doesn’t really matter either way.
-wfg
You’re threatening to on average kill at least 6000 people, in order to get the moderation policy you prefer. You’re also not completely insensitive to how people appear to others. Would you like to reconsider how you’ve been going about achieving your aims?
I find it hard to relate to the way of thinking of someone who’s willing to increase the chances that humanity goes extinct if someone deletes his post from a forum on the internet.
Please go find another community to “help” with this kind of blackmail.
If I understand him correctly, what he’s trying to do is to precommit to doing something which increases ER, iff EY does something that he (wfg) believes will increase ER by a greater amount. Now he may or may not be correct in that belief, but it seems clear that his motivation is to decrease net ER by disincentivizing something he views as increasing ER.
Right. Thanks for this post. People keep responding with knee-jerk reactions to the implementation rather than thought out ones to the idea :-/
Not that I can blame them, this seems to be an emotional topic for all of us.
Fair enough, go check out this article (and the wikipedia article on MAD) and see if it doesn’t make a bit more sense.