There is no self-reference in that comment. It’s pointing out that the post is not self-referential: the post suggests different voting rules for top-level comments, not for the post itself.
Either I have some mental block or I am simply stupid, either way I still don’t know what do the two instances of “this post” in the discussed comment refer to. Each could refer to [mattnewport 03 October 2010 08:24:34PM] or [wnoise03 October 2010 08:30:13PM], anyway, I am not able to make any sense of it.
I call both of those comments. This post was what mattnewport was responding to—the large essay outlining the game. In the context of Less Wrong (rather than Usenet) I restrict post to mean these top-level things.
Are we only supposed to upvote this post if we think it is irrational?
Is this post a top-level comment to this post?
The probability of that is <25%.
I am looking at this comment second time and still can’t parse the strange self-reference in it.
There is no self-reference in that comment. It’s pointing out that the post is not self-referential: the post suggests different voting rules for top-level comments, not for the post itself.
Either I have some mental block or I am simply stupid, either way I still don’t know what do the two instances of “this post” in the discussed comment refer to. Each could refer to [mattnewport 03 October 2010 08:24:34PM] or [wnoise03 October 2010 08:30:13PM], anyway, I am not able to make any sense of it.
I call both of those comments. This post was what mattnewport was responding to—the large essay outlining the game. In the context of Less Wrong (rather than Usenet) I restrict post to mean these top-level things.