Rationality is not a game you play by twisting words into the most similar sounding fallacy. Please go troll somewhere else.
I’m actually beginning to think you are right and he is trolling. I had originally just modeled him as just another victim of too much debate practice (and a tad too much arrogance to be healthy). But surely this caricature of the phenomenon can’t be sincere? I’m not even sure which way giving the benefit of the doubt would go here.
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’d be wary of a limit like that which is so easily reached by a few downvotes on a top level post, at least if the person has a record of positive contribution. Maybe if their karma earned in the last 30 days is <-30, and their total karma is not greater than 0?
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’ve been thinking something along those lines myself. Although it would be kind of awkward if one of us made a single main page post that people didn’t find interesting and was downvoted just to −4. I think Eliezer and Luke may even have done that at least once out of all their respective posts. It just takes doing that once in a month that they haven’t contributed much and bam, no more commenting for those top contributors for a month!
A solution that might work is having comments by < −10 total karma users greyed out or otherwise made less visible. Just any sort of automated troll warning system at all would be great!
My $0.02: I think benefit of the doubt would involve assuming that he genuinely believes that what he’s doing has value as a way of arriving at truth, and relatedly believes that the fact that the rest of us aren’t doing the same thing (and, further, are not supportive of his practice when he comes here and demonstrates it to us) means that we’re not really interested in rationality, just signalling.
Well, that, and that he’s kind of obnoxious.
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that’s [i]true[/i] -- my confidence level in my predictions about other people’s motives is extremely low—just that it seems like the most charitable interpretation.)
I’m actually beginning to think you are right and he is trolling. I had originally just modeled him as just another victim of too much debate practice (and a tad too much arrogance to be healthy). But surely this caricature of the phenomenon can’t be sincere? I’m not even sure which way giving the benefit of the doubt would go here.
I think he’s a sincere teenager who’s very new to this sort of thing. They sound, behave and type like that.
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’d be wary of a limit like that which is so easily reached by a few downvotes on a top level post, at least if the person has a record of positive contribution. Maybe if their karma earned in the last 30 days is <-30, and their total karma is not greater than 0?
I’ve been thinking something along those lines myself. Although it would be kind of awkward if one of us made a single main page post that people didn’t find interesting and was downvoted just to −4. I think Eliezer and Luke may even have done that at least once out of all their respective posts. It just takes doing that once in a month that they haven’t contributed much and bam, no more commenting for those top contributors for a month!
A solution that might work is having comments by < −10 total karma users greyed out or otherwise made less visible. Just any sort of automated troll warning system at all would be great!
My $0.02: I think benefit of the doubt would involve assuming that he genuinely believes that what he’s doing has value as a way of arriving at truth, and relatedly believes that the fact that the rest of us aren’t doing the same thing (and, further, are not supportive of his practice when he comes here and demonstrates it to us) means that we’re not really interested in rationality, just signalling.
Well, that, and that he’s kind of obnoxious.
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that’s [i]true[/i] -- my confidence level in my predictions about other people’s motives is extremely low—just that it seems like the most charitable interpretation.)