I do explain your failures. I explain your failures in detail. What I do not do, is commit unbounded time to answering your (or anyone’s) followup questions when I believe I have already answered them and/or the benefits no longer exceed the costs (ETC).
I believe that modding me down for a calm, honest, non-inflammatory statement of my opinion of you, is not something a mature individual would do. (Remember, it was the “deeming you in error” that I said was common, not “you being in error in some more objective or universal sense”.)
(While we’re on the topic, I seem to remember a long flamewar in which you also stopped giving additional clarification to those who asked what their error was—specifically, how to know if they’re being sexist. Keep in mind, no one who asked for help ever got a good enough model of what you count as sexism to generate the same answers that you did—note the “If I were rich I’d have a gardener” problem.)
Just for the record, there actually are instances when I have regarded your comments highly. Just twoexamples off the top of my head.
If and when you make comments with merit, I mod you up, without regard for any stupidity you might have revealed in the past. I might read your remarks a bit less, but if I see one that’s good, I mod it up. I do not, however, downmod you simply for saying something that’s not “on my side”—in fact, I recognize my own biases in flamewars and avoid modding when it’s likely to negatively influence my judgment.
If you call that “not liking you”, that just means you can’t distinguish liking a person from liking an argument.
If and when you make comments with merit, I mod you up, without regard for any stupidity you might have revealed in the past.
Note: as someone who is mainly on your “side,” use of terms like “stupidity” and “your failures” seem unnecessarily hostile and undermine the emphasis you place on separating people and arguments.
Fair point, and I appreciate your input—I’m often ignorant of the differences between how I would take remarks vs. how other people would.
But with respect to my use of “your failures”, that was just to follow the form of Alicorn’s question, not because I like making others feel like failures. Here’s the relevant part:
Let me clarify: you think I’m immature, almost constantly in error, you won’t explain my failures in enough detail for me to make use of the information even when I ask… [bold added—SB]
You know what? That looks a lot like how I feel about you. I frequently deem you in error, but sometimes you say something I like and I’ve occasionally upvoted you. Believe it or not, in spite of that, I don’t like you. Your defense is therefore hardly airtight: it’s possible to sometimes upvote a person while disliking them. So either you’re hedging to avoid having to admit disliking me (you haven’t claimed not to dislike me, you’ve only said that’s not the “issue” and that I don’t have the right data to assume it), or there’s some additional phenomenon going on besides our voting behavior, or we’re talking past each other and mean different things by “like”, “don’t like”, and “dislike”.
Of course liking a person is separate from evaluation of their comments—at least I hope people here act that way! What I dispute is this insinuation that my treatment of you is evidence of having built up some personal or emotional “dislike” of you, as opposed to a clear-headed reaction to the merit of your posts.
I also strongly dispute your suggestion of symmetry: I do not use the voting system as a tool to “get back” at you during disputes, while the evidence suggests that you do start modding me down even when your objectivity has clearly been compromised and therefore when your voting is disinformative to others.
Yes, yes, there’s no rule against modding down someone you just got into a flamewar with or who offended your honor and I’m a masochist for employing such restraint, blah blah blah. Nevertheless, I am clearly treating you better than you treat me, so if anything, you should be appreciative of my actions and not characterize them as some kind of mistreatment.
Very well, I will leave you alone, though I’ll still comment in top-level posts you start. But at this point I’m very much interested in resolving our differences, which I think would be better for both of us. Please let me know if you’re interested in chatting things over in the (cyber-)presence of a neutral mediator.
Oh sorry, that was probably me. I spent the past couple of weeks almost dying of an infection, so didn’t have time to read much of Lw; I just caught up on recent comments. I wouldn’t doubt that I’d downvoted a bunch of your comments in fairly quick succession.
I do explain your failures. I explain your failures in detail. What I do not do, is commit unbounded time to answering your (or anyone’s) followup questions when I believe I have already answered them and/or the benefits no longer exceed the costs (ETC).
I believe that modding me down for a calm, honest, non-inflammatory statement of my opinion of you, is not something a mature individual would do. (Remember, it was the “deeming you in error” that I said was common, not “you being in error in some more objective or universal sense”.)
(While we’re on the topic, I seem to remember a long flamewar in which you also stopped giving additional clarification to those who asked what their error was—specifically, how to know if they’re being sexist. Keep in mind, no one who asked for help ever got a good enough model of what you count as sexism to generate the same answers that you did—note the “If I were rich I’d have a gardener” problem.)
Just for the record, there actually are instances when I have regarded your comments highly. Just two examples off the top of my head.
If and when you make comments with merit, I mod you up, without regard for any stupidity you might have revealed in the past. I might read your remarks a bit less, but if I see one that’s good, I mod it up. I do not, however, downmod you simply for saying something that’s not “on my side”—in fact, I recognize my own biases in flamewars and avoid modding when it’s likely to negatively influence my judgment.
If you call that “not liking you”, that just means you can’t distinguish liking a person from liking an argument.
Note: as someone who is mainly on your “side,” use of terms like “stupidity” and “your failures” seem unnecessarily hostile and undermine the emphasis you place on separating people and arguments.
Fair point, and I appreciate your input—I’m often ignorant of the differences between how I would take remarks vs. how other people would.
But with respect to my use of “your failures”, that was just to follow the form of Alicorn’s question, not because I like making others feel like failures. Here’s the relevant part:
You know what? That looks a lot like how I feel about you. I frequently deem you in error, but sometimes you say something I like and I’ve occasionally upvoted you. Believe it or not, in spite of that, I don’t like you. Your defense is therefore hardly airtight: it’s possible to sometimes upvote a person while disliking them. So either you’re hedging to avoid having to admit disliking me (you haven’t claimed not to dislike me, you’ve only said that’s not the “issue” and that I don’t have the right data to assume it), or there’s some additional phenomenon going on besides our voting behavior, or we’re talking past each other and mean different things by “like”, “don’t like”, and “dislike”.
The word ‘defence’ made me blink.
I am pleased to have contributed to the needed moistening of your eyes. Remember, without tear ducts, we would soon be blind.
Of course liking a person is separate from evaluation of their comments—at least I hope people here act that way! What I dispute is this insinuation that my treatment of you is evidence of having built up some personal or emotional “dislike” of you, as opposed to a clear-headed reaction to the merit of your posts.
I also strongly dispute your suggestion of symmetry: I do not use the voting system as a tool to “get back” at you during disputes, while the evidence suggests that you do start modding me down even when your objectivity has clearly been compromised and therefore when your voting is disinformative to others.
Yes, yes, there’s no rule against modding down someone you just got into a flamewar with or who offended your honor and I’m a masochist for employing such restraint, blah blah blah. Nevertheless, I am clearly treating you better than you treat me, so if anything, you should be appreciative of my actions and not characterize them as some kind of mistreatment.
I love how on this site you say “your voting is disinformative to others” instead of “voting me down because you’re a cowardly jerkface”.
This is, um, far from obvious.
I’m going to start ignoring you now. Please leave me alone.
Very well, I will leave you alone, though I’ll still comment in top-level posts you start. But at this point I’m very much interested in resolving our differences, which I think would be better for both of us. Please let me know if you’re interested in chatting things over in the (cyber-)presence of a neutral mediator.
And my karma is now in free-fall...
Oh sorry, that was probably me. I spent the past couple of weeks almost dying of an infection, so didn’t have time to read much of Lw; I just caught up on recent comments. I wouldn’t doubt that I’d downvoted a bunch of your comments in fairly quick succession.
No need to apologize. Gotta feel noble, after all.