Does Said have his equivalent of a Moderating LessWrong post? I do indeed feel like I’ve had norms-level disagreements with him in the past, but Said: I don’t actually have a clear sense of your position such that I could try to pass an ITT.
Hmm, I’m not sure that I have a unitary “position” here beyond agreement with the principle discussed in this comment thread. I have opinions on various aspects and details of the matter, of course, but I’d hesitate to give a summary or state an organizing principle without a good deal of thought (and perhaps not even then).
One thing that I would say is that in many cases, it seems like have “anti-rules” may be more productive than having “rules”. What I mean by that is: if Alice says X, and X is perhaps undesirable, it may not be necessary to have a rule “don’t say X”, if instead you have a rule “when Bob observes disapprovingly that Alice says X, and suggests that she’d better explain why she said X, consider this a helpful and good act on Bob’s part (for the purposes of determining what rules apply to the interaction)”.
Another way to look at this is that one doesn’t need to institute a plan to build something, if one can instead guarantee that those who wish to build that thing be allowed to do so, and not interfered with. (Here we can see parallels with community-building efforts “in the real world”, and legal obstacles thereto.)
Going up a meta level, I’ll say that I prefer to go down a meta level. In other words, I prefer to assemble general principles of this sort from object-level questions. For this reason, asking about an overall “my position” may not necessarily be fruitful.
Not that I know of, although he’s written a bunch of comments touching on it.
I’m thinking less of “high level principles” and more like “what things do you consider edge cases, or how to balance other principles when they’re in conflict.”
I also… predict that you and Duncan would get into conflict/disagreement about the operationalization of when/how to apply this particular norm.
Does Said have his equivalent of a Moderating LessWrong post? I do indeed feel like I’ve had norms-level disagreements with him in the past, but Said: I don’t actually have a clear sense of your position such that I could try to pass an ITT.
Hmm, I’m not sure that I have a unitary “position” here beyond agreement with the principle discussed in this comment thread. I have opinions on various aspects and details of the matter, of course, but I’d hesitate to give a summary or state an organizing principle without a good deal of thought (and perhaps not even then).
One thing that I would say is that in many cases, it seems like have “anti-rules” may be more productive than having “rules”. What I mean by that is: if Alice says X, and X is perhaps undesirable, it may not be necessary to have a rule “don’t say X”, if instead you have a rule “when Bob observes disapprovingly that Alice says X, and suggests that she’d better explain why she said X, consider this a helpful and good act on Bob’s part (for the purposes of determining what rules apply to the interaction)”.
Another way to look at this is that one doesn’t need to institute a plan to build something, if one can instead guarantee that those who wish to build that thing be allowed to do so, and not interfered with. (Here we can see parallels with community-building efforts “in the real world”, and legal obstacles thereto.)
Going up a meta level, I’ll say that I prefer to go down a meta level. In other words, I prefer to assemble general principles of this sort from object-level questions. For this reason, asking about an overall “my position” may not necessarily be fruitful.
Not that I know of, although he’s written a bunch of comments touching on it.
I’m thinking less of “high level principles” and more like “what things do you consider edge cases, or how to balance other principles when they’re in conflict.”
Yes, that seems almost certain.