The results of the poll, at this moment… rot-13′d to prevent spoilers...
V cersre n frdhrapr bs negvpyrf—mreb; mreb creprag V cersre bar negvpyr bayl—bar; frira creprag V cersre ab negvpyrf, bayl n qvfphffvba va bcra guernq—svir; guveglfvk creprag V cersre abg gb qvfphff guvf gbcvp ng nyy—svir; guveglfvk creprag Fbzrguvat ryfr (cyrnfr rkcynva va n pbzzrag) - mreb; mreb creprag V ershfr gb ibgr ba guvf gnobb gbcvp, whfg fubj zr gur erfhygf—guerr; gjraglbar creprag
That’s very interesting. At what point can one start talking about implications of a poll without it being a spoiler?
I don’t know the actual reasons why my original Discussion post “Assertion: a large proportion of pedophiles are celibate” was deleted—I figure the community has its methods of operation and assume it was all done according to regulations. I am aware of reasons that were given in this thread for wanting it removed—though I don’t know the relationship of those reasons to why it was actually removed.
Survey results suggest considerable support in the community for discussing the topic in the Open Thread. A reasonable person might think it would be appropriate to repost that topic in the Open thread (I have the text of my original post). Such a person would also want to make sure that would not be considered hostile behavior, in the absence of knowing the actual reasons it was removed. I also don’t know what is supposed to happen here when half a community thinks something shouldn’t be discussed and the other half is OK with it.
At what point can one start talking about implications of a poll without it being a spoiler?
I don’t know about any specific rule. The general idea is that people should see the poll first (so that they are not influenced how to vote), but I guess three days later it’s fair game.
I don’t know the actual reasons why my original Discussion post (...) was deleted
Voting means deciding whether members want the article or don’t want the article. Your article was extremely downvoted. Like, one of the most downvoted articles ever; probably in the bottom 2%. So if there was any obvious community consensus about removing an article, it was about this one.
Meta: I think it would be more proper to become familiar with norms of a community first, and publish articles later. Comments like this seem to provide further evidence that you are actually not interested in LessWrong per se, just see it as a platform for your topic.
Survey results suggest considerable support in the community for discussing the topic in the Open Thread.
If you interpret “half of members don’t want to disuss it at all, and the other half prefers keeping it in the open thread only” as a considerable support… well, I guess you were going to interpret almost any result positively.
A reasonable person might think it would be appropriate to repost that topic in the Open thread (I have the text of my original post).
I guess you are going to do it anyway; just let me say there is nothing “reasonable” about reposting a text that got karma below −20.
I also don’t know what is supposed to happen here when half a community thinks something shouldn’t be discussed and the other half is OK with it.
Well, if people have a strong desire to discuss something, they will. And each comment is upvoted or downvoted on its merits. Knowing that a large part of community does not want some topic either makes people comment less on it, or become extra careful when writing about it.
At this point I am no longer interested even in meta-discussions of this topic. Tapping out.
You raise interesting points. One could hypothesize that the downvoting of the original article was due to its placement in the prominent Discussion thread, and seeing it in the open thread people would have not objected to it there. It seems an unlikely interpretation of the bulk of the votes, I agree. The serious downvoting of the original article does weigh heavily on this.
I think those who answered the poll were probably a biased sample in a serious way. Who read it? People who were interested in discussing this topic, and people who were not AND who were still motivated enough to be here to continue arguing for not discussing it. Those who didn’t want it discussed were probably underrerepresented.
How my reputation went from −13 to −40 overnight is intriguing. It had been quite stable, and I made a few posts yesterday that were not especially controversial. I speculate that the tapped-out Viliam-Bur in his review of my posts downvoted them all. I guess that’s fine, but maybe considered at a meta level gives one individual more power than is ideal? It is of course just speculation. I’m interested in alternative hypotheses.
The results of the poll, at this moment… rot-13′d to prevent spoilers...
V cersre n frdhrapr bs negvpyrf—mreb; mreb creprag
V cersre bar negvpyr bayl—bar; frira creprag
V cersre ab negvpyrf, bayl n qvfphffvba va bcra guernq—svir; guveglfvk creprag
V cersre abg gb qvfphff guvf gbcvp ng nyy—svir; guveglfvk creprag
Fbzrguvat ryfr (cyrnfr rkcynva va n pbzzrag) - mreb; mreb creprag
V ershfr gb ibgr ba guvf gnobb gbcvp, whfg fubj zr gur erfhygf—guerr; gjraglbar creprag
That’s very interesting. At what point can one start talking about implications of a poll without it being a spoiler?
I don’t know the actual reasons why my original Discussion post “Assertion: a large proportion of pedophiles are celibate” was deleted—I figure the community has its methods of operation and assume it was all done according to regulations. I am aware of reasons that were given in this thread for wanting it removed—though I don’t know the relationship of those reasons to why it was actually removed.
Survey results suggest considerable support in the community for discussing the topic in the Open Thread. A reasonable person might think it would be appropriate to repost that topic in the Open thread (I have the text of my original post). Such a person would also want to make sure that would not be considered hostile behavior, in the absence of knowing the actual reasons it was removed. I also don’t know what is supposed to happen here when half a community thinks something shouldn’t be discussed and the other half is OK with it.
I don’t know about any specific rule. The general idea is that people should see the poll first (so that they are not influenced how to vote), but I guess three days later it’s fair game.
Voting means deciding whether members want the article or don’t want the article. Your article was extremely downvoted. Like, one of the most downvoted articles ever; probably in the bottom 2%. So if there was any obvious community consensus about removing an article, it was about this one.
Meta: I think it would be more proper to become familiar with norms of a community first, and publish articles later. Comments like this seem to provide further evidence that you are actually not interested in LessWrong per se, just see it as a platform for your topic.
If you interpret “half of members don’t want to disuss it at all, and the other half prefers keeping it in the open thread only” as a considerable support… well, I guess you were going to interpret almost any result positively.
I guess you are going to do it anyway; just let me say there is nothing “reasonable” about reposting a text that got karma below −20.
Well, if people have a strong desire to discuss something, they will. And each comment is upvoted or downvoted on its merits. Knowing that a large part of community does not want some topic either makes people comment less on it, or become extra careful when writing about it.
At this point I am no longer interested even in meta-discussions of this topic. Tapping out.
EDIT: Must… resist… trolling.
You raise interesting points. One could hypothesize that the downvoting of the original article was due to its placement in the prominent Discussion thread, and seeing it in the open thread people would have not objected to it there. It seems an unlikely interpretation of the bulk of the votes, I agree. The serious downvoting of the original article does weigh heavily on this.
I think those who answered the poll were probably a biased sample in a serious way. Who read it? People who were interested in discussing this topic, and people who were not AND who were still motivated enough to be here to continue arguing for not discussing it. Those who didn’t want it discussed were probably underrerepresented.
How my reputation went from −13 to −40 overnight is intriguing. It had been quite stable, and I made a few posts yesterday that were not especially controversial. I speculate that the tapped-out Viliam-Bur in his review of my posts downvoted them all. I guess that’s fine, but maybe considered at a meta level gives one individual more power than is ideal? It is of course just speculation. I’m interested in alternative hypotheses.