You currently look like you’re doing two things – arguing about what the author-moderation norms should be, and arguing whether/how we should adopt a particular set of norms that Duncan advocated. I think those two topics are getting muddied together and making the conversation worse.
These two things are related, in the way to which I alluded in my very first comment on this topic. (Namely: the author-moderation feature shouldn’t exist [in its current form], because it gives rise to situations like this, where we can’t effectively discuss whether we should do something like adopting Duncan’s proposed norms.) I’m not just randomly conflating these two things for no reason!
My answer to the “whether/how should we adopt the norms in Basics of Rationalist Discourse?” is addressed here. If you disagree with that, I suggest replying to that with your concrete disagreement on that particular topic.
Uh… sorry, I don’t see how that comment is actually an answer to that question? It… doesn’t seem to be…
Duncan’s blocking-of-you-and-others so far seems like a fairly central example of what the norms were intended to protect, on purpose, and so far you haven’t noted any example relating to the Duncan thread that seem… at all particularly unusual for how we expected authors to use the feature?
Yes, of course! That’s why it makes perfect sense to discuss this case as illustrative of the broader question!
What I am saying is not “you guys made this feature, but now look, people are using it in a bad way which is totally not the way you intended or expected”. No! What I’m saying is “you guys made this feature, and people are using it in exactly the way you intended and expected, but we can now see that this is very bad”.
Like, yes, you can’t be confident whether an author blocks someone due to them disagreeing, or having a principled policy, or just being annoyed.
Those are not different things!
This really bears emphasizing: there is no difference between “banning people who disagree with you [robustly / in some other specific way]” and “finding some people (who happen to be the ones disagreeing with you [robustly/etc.] annoying, and banning them for (supposedly) that reason”[1] and “having a principled policy of doing any of the above”. “Finding people annoying, and quite reasonably banning them for being annoying” is simply how “banning people for disagreeing with you” feels from the inside.
But, we implemented the rules because “commenters are annoying” is actually a central existential threat to LessWrong.
Yes. Such things are central existential threats to many (perhaps most) discussion forums, and online communities in general.
But traditionally, this is handled by moderators.
The reason why this is necessary is well known: nemo judex in sua causa. Alice and Bob engage in disputation. Bob complains to the moderators that Alice is being annoying. Moderator Carol comes along, reads the exchange, and says one of two things:
“You’re right, Bob; Alice was out of line. Alice, stop that—on pain of censure.”
or
“Sorry, Bob, it looks like Alice hasn’t done anything wrong. She’s just disagreeing with you. No action is warranted against her; you’ll just have to deal with it.”
But if Bob is the moderator, then there’s no surprise if he judges the case unfairly, and renders the former verdict when the latter would be just!
If we thought it was actually distorting conversation in a bad way, we’d re-evaluate the policy. But I don’t see reason to think that’s happening (given that, for example, Zack went ahead and wrote a top-level post about stuff. It’s not obvious this outcome was better for Duncan, so we might revisit the policy for that reason, but, not for ‘important arguments are getting surpressed’ reasons).
Come now! Have you suddenly forgotten about “trivial inconveniences”, about “criticism being more expensive than praise”? You “don’t see reason to think” that any distortions result from this?! Writing top-level posts is effortful, costly in both time and willpower. What’s more, writing a top-level post just for the purpose of arguing with another member, who has banned you from his posts, is, for many (most?) people, something that feels socially awkward and weird and aversive (and quite understandably so). It reads like a social attack, in a way that simply commenting on their post does not. (I have great respect for Zack for having the determination and will to overcome these barriers, but not everyone is Zack. Most people, seeing that insistent and forceful criticism gets them banned from someone’s posts, will simply close the browser tab.)
In short, the suggestion that this isn’t distorting conversation seems to me to be manifestly untenable.
Part of the whole point of the moderation policy is that it’s not the job of individual users to have to defend their right to use the moderation tools, so I do now concretely ask you to stop arguing about Duncan-in-particular.
As you please.
However, you have also invited me to discuss the matter of the author-moderation feature in general. How do you propose that I do that, if I am forbidden to refer to the only example I have? (Especially since, as you note, it is a central example of the phenomenon in question.) It seems pretty clearly unfair to invite debate while handicapping one’s interlocutor in this way.
Well, more properly, “banning people for disagreeing” is generally a subset of “banning people for being annoying”. But we can generally expect it to be a proper subset only if the traditional sort of moderation is not taking place, because the complement (within the set of “people being annoying”) of “people disagreeing”—that is, people who are being annoying for other reasons—is generally handled by mods.
These two things are related, in the way to which I alluded in my very first comment on this topic. (Namely: the author-moderation feature shouldn’t exist [in its current form], because it gives rise to situations like this, where we can’t effectively discuss whether we should do something like adopting Duncan’s proposed norms.) I’m not just randomly conflating these two things for no reason!
Uh… sorry, I don’t see how that comment is actually an answer to that question? It… doesn’t seem to be…
Yes, of course! That’s why it makes perfect sense to discuss this case as illustrative of the broader question!
What I am saying is not “you guys made this feature, but now look, people are using it in a bad way which is totally not the way you intended or expected”. No! What I’m saying is “you guys made this feature, and people are using it in exactly the way you intended and expected, but we can now see that this is very bad”.
Those are not different things!
This really bears emphasizing: there is no difference between “banning people who disagree with you [robustly / in some other specific way]” and “finding some people (who happen to be the ones disagreeing with you [robustly/etc.] annoying, and banning them for (supposedly) that reason”[1] and “having a principled policy of doing any of the above”. “Finding people annoying, and quite reasonably banning them for being annoying” is simply how “banning people for disagreeing with you” feels from the inside.
Yes. Such things are central existential threats to many (perhaps most) discussion forums, and online communities in general.
But traditionally, this is handled by moderators.
The reason why this is necessary is well known: nemo judex in sua causa. Alice and Bob engage in disputation. Bob complains to the moderators that Alice is being annoying. Moderator Carol comes along, reads the exchange, and says one of two things:
“You’re right, Bob; Alice was out of line. Alice, stop that—on pain of censure.”
or
“Sorry, Bob, it looks like Alice hasn’t done anything wrong. She’s just disagreeing with you. No action is warranted against her; you’ll just have to deal with it.”
But if Bob is the moderator, then there’s no surprise if he judges the case unfairly, and renders the former verdict when the latter would be just!
Come now! Have you suddenly forgotten about “trivial inconveniences”, about “criticism being more expensive than praise”? You “don’t see reason to think” that any distortions result from this?! Writing top-level posts is effortful, costly in both time and willpower. What’s more, writing a top-level post just for the purpose of arguing with another member, who has banned you from his posts, is, for many (most?) people, something that feels socially awkward and weird and aversive (and quite understandably so). It reads like a social attack, in a way that simply commenting on their post does not. (I have great respect for Zack for having the determination and will to overcome these barriers, but not everyone is Zack. Most people, seeing that insistent and forceful criticism gets them banned from someone’s posts, will simply close the browser tab.)
In short, the suggestion that this isn’t distorting conversation seems to me to be manifestly untenable.
As you please.
However, you have also invited me to discuss the matter of the author-moderation feature in general. How do you propose that I do that, if I am forbidden to refer to the only example I have? (Especially since, as you note, it is a central example of the phenomenon in question.) It seems pretty clearly unfair to invite debate while handicapping one’s interlocutor in this way.
Well, more properly, “banning people for disagreeing” is generally a subset of “banning people for being annoying”. But we can generally expect it to be a proper subset only if the traditional sort of moderation is not taking place, because the complement (within the set of “people being annoying”) of “people disagreeing”—that is, people who are being annoying for other reasons—is generally handled by mods.