the banhammer came down literally within 60 seconds.
That’s pretty quick reactions if it’s really about the accusation of dishonesty. On the other hand, you accused Eliezer of dishonesty again in this thread, and it’s been up for over two hours. Furthermore, the accusation is much more noticeable in this thread than it was in your previous, since it occurred in the body of a discussion post titled “Censorship: A case study” (which would probably catch Eliezer’s attention if he was watching out for people questioning the motives of his censorship policy) instead of in a comment. And Eliezer’s name appears in the recent comments as I type this, so it’s not just that he’s been offline the whole time. So your conclusion actually fails pretty miserably.
Edit: I was tempted to refrain from downvoting your post, since empiricism is cool, even though this particular experiment was not helpful, your method may have caused collateral damage, and your conclusion was poorly supported. On the other hand, you had a chart that presented a poorly-supported hypothesis as fact. Anyone who starts off by skimming your post, like I did, would see the chart and be grossly mislead until he looked at the details. Your dishonesty was the last straw.
even though this particular experiment was not helpful
Not helpful? How do you figure? From where I stand, we won’t be able to draw any conclusions about that until several days from now, after seeing how things play out.
your method may have caused collateral damage,
Elaborate, please.
and your conclusion was poorly supported. On the other hand, you had a chart that presented a poorly-supported hypothesis as fact.
How do you mean? Obviously it wasn’t a rigorously controlled experiment, up to acedemic standards—it wasn’t supposed to be. But I’m not aware of any obvious flaws. As stated elsewhere in the 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 … the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.
Or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.
Your dishonesty was the last straw.
I’ve never been more honest in my life. What do you mean?
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.
That’s pretty quick reactions if it’s really about the accusation of dishonesty. On the other hand, you accused Eliezer of dishonesty again in this thread, and it’s been up for over two hours. Furthermore, the accusation is much more noticeable in this thread than it was in your previous, since it occurred in the body of a discussion post titled “Censorship: A case study” (which would probably catch Eliezer’s attention if he was watching out for people questioning the motives of his censorship policy) instead of in a comment. And Eliezer’s name appears in the recent comments as I type this, so it’s not just that he’s been offline the whole time. So your conclusion actually fails pretty miserably.
Edit: I was tempted to refrain from downvoting your post, since empiricism is cool, even though this particular experiment was not helpful, your method may have caused collateral damage, and your conclusion was poorly supported. On the other hand, you had a chart that presented a poorly-supported hypothesis as fact. Anyone who starts off by skimming your post, like I did, would see the chart and be grossly mislead until he looked at the details. Your dishonesty was the last straw.
Not helpful? How do you figure? From where I stand, we won’t be able to draw any conclusions about that until several days from now, after seeing how things play out.
Elaborate, please.
How do you mean? Obviously it wasn’t a rigorously controlled experiment, up to acedemic standards—it wasn’t supposed to be. But I’m not aware of any obvious flaws. As stated elsewhere in the thread:
Or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.
I’ve never been more honest in my life. What do you mean?
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.