Hmm, perhaps another way to put it would be that I would like there to be one “standard of discourse” across the site, and multiple types of conversations that can be had within that standard.
What distinction would you draw between that and “there is a meta-standard that includes either 2, or possibly hundreds, of conversation-types?”
(I have come around to “‘hundreds of conversation’ types are pretty confusing and not a good idea”, but not sure which principle you’re drawing.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Hmm, perhaps another way to put it would be that I would like there to be one “standard of discourse” across the site, and multiple types of conversations that can be had within that standard.
What distinction would you draw between that and “there is a meta-standard that includes either 2, or possibly hundreds, of conversation-types?”
(I have come around to “‘hundreds of conversation’ types are pretty confusing and not a good idea”, but not sure which principle you’re drawing.