My theory was correct: the policy did not prevent that user from being told the spoiler. You may say this is because it was violated, as of course it was, but what was the correct response?
“We can’t tell you due to the spoiler policy”? “Ryvrmre fnvq fb va na rneyvre nhgube’f abgr gung jnf ergenpgrq”? Would either of those, or indeed any response, have resulted in that user not finding out about it?
If someone says something similar in the next thread, what would you have me do?
I was under the impression this was a community rule. People were certainly talking as if they believed in the logical basis for having the policy in order to prevent people from getting spoiled, rather than just doing what he says.
Out of interest, and as an experimental test of the point I made earlier, what sort of responses did those comments receive?
Here’s one.
My theory was correct: the policy did not prevent that user from being told the spoiler. You may say this is because it was violated, as of course it was, but what was the correct response?
“We can’t tell you due to the spoiler policy”? “Ryvrmre fnvq fb va na rneyvre nhgube’f abgr gung jnf ergenpgrq”? Would either of those, or indeed any response, have resulted in that user not finding out about it?
If someone says something similar in the next thread, what would you have me do?
The same thing I did then: inform them that it is a spoiler, and give them the option to find out.
But they already know that everyone believes Q=V. The spoiler is the fact that there is a spoiler.
What I want to know is, why are you arguing about this with everyone except the person whose opinion actually matters? Just PM Eliezer and have done.
I was under the impression this was a community rule. People were certainly talking as if they believed in the logical basis for having the policy in order to prevent people from getting spoiled, rather than just doing what he says.
If Eliezer unretracted the Author’s Note I highly doubt anyone would argue to keep the policy.