That’s pretty quick reactions if it’s really about the accusation of dishonesty.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the “troll thread” had been pretty much dead for about 12 hours or so when the “dishonesty” comment got posted… and 60 seconds later resulted in deletion. I’m a bit too intoxicated at the moment to do the math, but the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.
Furthermore, the accusation is much more noticeable in this thread than it was in your previous
Yes, but in this thread, unlike the other, I’ve been very careful not to violate any deletion policies/social norms, thereby denying Eliezer/the Mods any convenient excuse for deletion.
the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.
On the other hand, look at your alternate hypothesis. Eliezer found your comment, read it, decided he wanted to get rid of it, noticed that you committed a censorable offense elsewhere in the thread, and deleted the thread, all within 60 seconds of you posting it. This does not sound much more plausible than him noticing that your thread broke the rules, and censoring it for that reason, at about the same time your accused him of dishonesty in it.
And now allow me to address the prior probability of your hypothesis: When Eliezer announced the censorship policy, he indicated that several posts that could be seen as borderline, and which did not criticize Eliezer at all, would be subject to the policy. Given that evidence, it would be absolutely shocking if he did not censor your post once it was pointed out that you broke the advocating violence rule, whether or not you accused him of dishonesty.
Eliezer found your comment, read it, decided he wanted to get rid of it
Circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not Eliezer himself who personally modded the thread. But I’m not sure.
This does not sound much more plausible than him noticing that your thread broke the rules, and censoring it for that reason, at about the same time your accused him of dishonesty in it.
Sure, that’s a possability. It seems to me much less likely than my proposed hypothesis, but only the mods can say for sure. Mods? Comment?
Given that evidence, it would be absolutely shocking if he did not censor your post once it was pointed out that you broke the advocating violence rule, whether or not you accused him of dishonesty.
Well, this post is still up, despite discussing violence.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the “troll thread” had been pretty much dead for about 12 hours or so when the “dishonesty” comment got posted… and 60 seconds later resulted in deletion. I’m a bit too intoxicated at the moment to do the math, but the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.
Yes, but in this thread, unlike the other, I’ve been very careful not to violate any deletion policies/social norms, thereby denying Eliezer/the Mods any convenient excuse for deletion.
On the other hand, look at your alternate hypothesis. Eliezer found your comment, read it, decided he wanted to get rid of it, noticed that you committed a censorable offense elsewhere in the thread, and deleted the thread, all within 60 seconds of you posting it. This does not sound much more plausible than him noticing that your thread broke the rules, and censoring it for that reason, at about the same time your accused him of dishonesty in it.
And now allow me to address the prior probability of your hypothesis: When Eliezer announced the censorship policy, he indicated that several posts that could be seen as borderline, and which did not criticize Eliezer at all, would be subject to the policy. Given that evidence, it would be absolutely shocking if he did not censor your post once it was pointed out that you broke the advocating violence rule, whether or not you accused him of dishonesty.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not Eliezer himself who personally modded the thread. But I’m not sure.
Sure, that’s a possability. It seems to me much less likely than my proposed hypothesis, but only the mods can say for sure. Mods? Comment?
Well, this post is still up, despite discussing violence.