The conflation of “Duncan’s ideal” and “the perfect ideal everyone has agreed to” is what I’m complaining about.
If Duncan had, e.g., included guidelines that were LW consensus but he disagreed with, then it would feel more like an attempt to codify the site’s collective preferences rather than his in particular.
I don’t think that Duncan tried to describe what everyone has agreed to, I think he tried to describe the ideal truth-seeking discussion norms, irrespective of this site’s current discussion norms.
Added: I guess one can see here what the algorithm he aimed to run, which had elements of both:
In other words, the guidelines are descriptive of good discourse that already exists; here I am attempting to convert them into prescriptions, with some wiggle room and some caveats.
The conflation of “Duncan’s ideal” and “the perfect ideal everyone has agreed to” is what I’m complaining about.
If Duncan had, e.g., included guidelines that were LW consensus but he disagreed with, then it would feel more like an attempt to codify the site’s collective preferences rather than his in particular.
I don’t think that Duncan tried to describe what everyone has agreed to, I think he tried to describe the ideal truth-seeking discussion norms, irrespective of this site’s current discussion norms.
Added: I guess one can see here what the algorithm he aimed to run, which had elements of both: