So, I would still like to know “what cluster of norms do you actually prefer?” An important part of this question was “what is there actual demand for, and/or supply of?”
Personally I only really want to engage with the collaborative norm where people act in good faith, try to discover the source of their disagreement, build context, and then transcend it via synthesizing new understanding.
I view the debate/adversarial norm cluster as strictly worse at truth seeking but necessary to support folks who aren’t up to handling the greater complexity of the collaborate norm (since it requires much more mind-modeling capability, so much so that I would think imposing it would constitute ableism), so I want an adversarial norm to exist, too.
I also want the “nice” norm cluster because it gives an easy onramp for folks who aren’t ready for critical discourse norms, but I would also be pretty disappointed if it became too prevalent or started to be used on posts with serious content I wanted to engage with.
I wonder if we should document voting norms in addition to commenting norms. Making a strong downvote early in the life of a comment (so your vote has large impact), unless you think the comment should be removed (which I presume isn’t the case here) should require some explanation, IMO.
You could post a new question “What clusters of norms/rules do you want?” and ask people to not worry about the number, just have that be a second phase where people choose/vote/explain their preferences among the suggestions so far.
Ah. What I meant to be clear (but perhaps failed to communicate, is that I wanted each author to list the norms that they personally want, rather than the norms they think other people want.
The “how many norms does everyone want” is a fact that should arise emergently from the process of everyone sharing their own individual preferences.
So, I would still like to know “what cluster of norms do you actually prefer?” An important part of this question was “what is there actual demand for, and/or supply of?”
I would post much more on lesswrong if there was a ‘no nitpicking’ norm available.
For convenience of skimming, could you post this as a top-level answer?
Personally I only really want to engage with the collaborative norm where people act in good faith, try to discover the source of their disagreement, build context, and then transcend it via synthesizing new understanding.
I view the debate/adversarial norm cluster as strictly worse at truth seeking but necessary to support folks who aren’t up to handling the greater complexity of the collaborate norm (since it requires much more mind-modeling capability, so much so that I would think imposing it would constitute ableism), so I want an adversarial norm to exist, too.
I also want the “nice” norm cluster because it gives an easy onramp for folks who aren’t ready for critical discourse norms, but I would also be pretty disappointed if it became too prevalent or started to be used on posts with serious content I wanted to engage with.
I don’t want the “asshole” norm cluster on LW.
Wow, that’s some harsh downvoting for a comment giving a directly solicited opinion.
Yeah I was like “wtf bro?”.
For context of people coming along later, I posted the comment and right away got a single −9 vote, which I found surprising enough to comment on!
I wonder if we should document voting norms in addition to commenting norms. Making a strong downvote early in the life of a comment (so your vote has large impact), unless you think the comment should be removed (which I presume isn’t the case here) should require some explanation, IMO.
LW team has discussed a few options for changing the rules for strong votes, with possibilities including:
All strong votes require a (short) explanation
Strong vote power decays if you use it all the time
You could post a new question “What clusters of norms/rules do you want?” and ask people to not worry about the number, just have that be a second phase where people choose/vote/explain their preferences among the suggestions so far.
Ah. What I meant to be clear (but perhaps failed to communicate, is that I wanted each author to list the norms that they personally want, rather than the norms they think other people want.
The “how many norms does everyone want” is a fact that should arise emergently from the process of everyone sharing their own individual preferences.