You present your table of results as if it is uncontroversial data based on which a reasonable unbiased person would draw the conclusion that the deletion was caused by the accusation of dishonesty. But the table already smuggles in your preferred causal hypothesis, representing the deletion as a reponse to the accusation.
A better way to present the data would be to have a column for your actions, and then a second column giving the amount of time between that action and the deletion. By your account, the deletion occurred about a day after you posted trollish comments and 60 seconds after you accused EY of dishonesty. You obviously think it is much more likely that the mods will act immediately than that they will act with a one-day lag, but I don’t buy this, especially considering the fact that the one day during which the post wasn’t deleted was Christmas. The mods reading, processing and deleting a thread based on a comment within 60 seconds of posting seems less likely to me than the mods not having noticed the multiple violations in that thread until the day after Christmas and deleting based on those violations.
Moreover, even if I concede that the likelihoods skew the other way, my prior for the “deleted due to violations of policy” hypothesis is substantially greater than my prior for the “deleted in a fit of pique” hypothesis, so even a greater likelihood for the latter hypothesis doesn’t imply a greater posterior.
I would have preferred if you had simply stated that you suspect the deletion was due to your accusation of dishonesty. I would have disagreed, but wouldn’t have downvoted. But I don’t like the fact that you’ve constructed this pseudo-rational argument aimed at convincing us that your causal hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. So downvoted.
A better way to present the data would be to have a column for your actions, and then a second column giving the amount of time between that action and the deletion.
Agreed. That was my original intention, but I didn’t realize that deletion of the thread would eliminate the entire record of the sequence of events. I’m sure such a highly-granular log could be produced by the mods though. Mods? You reading this? (rhetorical question… we all know you are).
You obviously think it is much more likely that the mods will act immediately than that they will act with a one-day lag, but I don’t buy this, especially considering the fact that the one day during which the post wasn’t deleted was Christmas.
I was watching the “recent comments” while all this was ongoing, and I assure you that EY, and other prominent mods, were active on the site at the time. Also, not of demographics which typically celebrate christmas (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Agreed. That was my original intention, but I didn’t realize that deletion of the thread would eliminate the entire record of the sequence of events. I’m sure such a highly-granular log could be produced by the mods though. Mods? You reading this? (rhetorical question… we all know you are).
Your deleted post and all your deleted comments (with timestamps) are still accessible. Just click on your username on the top right.
You present your table of results as if it is uncontroversial data based on which a reasonable unbiased person would draw the conclusion that the deletion was caused by the accusation of dishonesty. But the table already smuggles in your preferred causal hypothesis, representing the deletion as a reponse to the accusation.
A better way to present the data would be to have a column for your actions, and then a second column giving the amount of time between that action and the deletion. By your account, the deletion occurred about a day after you posted trollish comments and 60 seconds after you accused EY of dishonesty. You obviously think it is much more likely that the mods will act immediately than that they will act with a one-day lag, but I don’t buy this, especially considering the fact that the one day during which the post wasn’t deleted was Christmas. The mods reading, processing and deleting a thread based on a comment within 60 seconds of posting seems less likely to me than the mods not having noticed the multiple violations in that thread until the day after Christmas and deleting based on those violations.
Moreover, even if I concede that the likelihoods skew the other way, my prior for the “deleted due to violations of policy” hypothesis is substantially greater than my prior for the “deleted in a fit of pique” hypothesis, so even a greater likelihood for the latter hypothesis doesn’t imply a greater posterior.
I would have preferred if you had simply stated that you suspect the deletion was due to your accusation of dishonesty. I would have disagreed, but wouldn’t have downvoted. But I don’t like the fact that you’ve constructed this pseudo-rational argument aimed at convincing us that your causal hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. So downvoted.
Agreed. That was my original intention, but I didn’t realize that deletion of the thread would eliminate the entire record of the sequence of events. I’m sure such a highly-granular log could be produced by the mods though. Mods? You reading this? (rhetorical question… we all know you are).
I was watching the “recent comments” while all this was ongoing, and I assure you that EY, and other prominent mods, were active on the site at the time. Also, not of demographics which typically celebrate christmas (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
Your deleted post and all your deleted comments (with timestamps) are still accessible. Just click on your username on the top right.
Yes, but I can only see my side of them, not the comments they were responding to, and they don’t make any sense that way.