kodos96

• kodos96Dec 27, 2012, 6:57 AM

  −1 points

  in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  even though this particular experiment was not helpful

  Not helpful? How do you figure? From where I stand, we won’t be able to draw any conclusions about that until several days from now, after seeing how things play out.

  your method may have caused collateral damage,

  Elaborate, please.

  and your conclusion was poorly supported. On the other hand, you had a chart that presented a poorly-supported hypothesis as fact.

  How do you mean? Obviously it wasn’t a rigorously controlled experiment, up to acedemic standards—it wasn’t supposed to be. But I’m not aware of any obvious flaws. As stated elsewhere in the thread:

  the “troll thread” had been pretty much dead for about 12 hours or so when the “dishonesty” comment got posted… and 60 seconds later resulted in deletion … the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.

  Or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.

  Your dishonesty was the last straw.

  I’ve never been more honest in my life. What do you mean?

• kodos96Dec 27, 2012, 6:47 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Your argument would seem to recommend a hands-off policy to moderation—in fact this is very the basis on which websites with full-time legal staff recommend such policies.

  If you censor (i.e. “exercise editorial control over”) posts which you disapprove of, the inescapable implication is that you DO approve of all OTHER posts. Whereas if you instead institute a policy of not exercising editorial control of your comments (except as mandated by law), then you escape that implication, by saying “we don’t exercise editorial control over our comments, therefore lack of censorship cannot logically be read to imply endorsement”.

• kodos96Dec 27, 2012, 5:44 AM

  −1 points

  in reply to: AlexMennen’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  That’s pretty quick reactions if it’s really about the accusation of dishonesty.

  As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the “troll thread” had been pretty much dead for about 12 hours or so when the “dishonesty” comment got posted… and 60 seconds later resulted in deletion. I’m a bit too intoxicated at the moment to do the math, but the unlikelihood of that being coincidental seems astronomical.

  Furthermore, the accusation is much more noticeable in this thread than it was in your previous

  Yes, but in this thread, unlike the other, I’ve been very careful not to violate any deletion policies/​social norms, thereby denying Eliezer/​the Mods any convenient excuse for deletion.

• kodos96Dec 27, 2012, 3:56 AM

  −1 points

  in reply to: pleeppleep’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  The only problem I can think of with this experiment is that your post could have been deleted for one of your more overt offenses, but it took until the time it was actually deleted for someone to actually get around to deleting it, especially with all the controversy. You have evidence that it was attacking Eliezer that broke the camel’s back, but maybe not strong evidence.

  Good point, but the timing of how exactly things went down argues pretty strongly for my interpretation: all of the explicit violations happened on christmas eve, within a period of a few hours. Then I was gone most of the next day for christmas with the family, during which time there was pretty much no action on the thread. When I posted the final comment, it was basically the only thing posted to the thread that day, and the banhammer came down literally within 60 seconds.

  What you should have done is post several different posts each violating one of the above rules and wait for something to happen, then post your concussions in a day or two. (sigh) I guess it’s too late for that now.

  Yeah, probably… but I had last minute christmas shopping to do!

• kodos96Dec 26, 2012, 8:50 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: New cen­sor­ship: against hy­po­thet­i­cal vi­o­lence against iden­ti­fi­able people

  Yes, that was covered by the previous question: “Under what jurisdiction?”

• kodos96Dec 26, 2012, 12:01 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  It’s also a form of dishonesty to request public feedback on a policy issue, then systematically ignore all feedback that disagrees with your predetermined decision.

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 10:48 AM

  −5 points

  in reply to: prase’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  You certainly raise some valid points. I’ll discuss them with you some more tomorrow.....

  I mean… assuming that that’s still allowed.

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 10:45 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: bryjnar’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Well, you are correct that the post isn’t actually about retributive justice.....… but it’s not about sovereignty either ;)

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 10:31 AM

  −6 points

  in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  This concludes the exhaustive explanation of why you were downvoted.

  I didn’t ask why the post was downvoted. I didn’t have to. It was by design.

  I feel that much of the planned impact of this post rests on challenging implicit assumption of political leaning: Holocaust bad, America good.

  Your assumptions are incorrect. The planned impact of the post rested rather on the implicit assumptions that Censorship bad, Open Debate good.

  Please review this post, and its comments, for the backstory. If you’re still not clear on what’s going on here, you should probably PM me so I don’t have to spoil the joke any further here on the thread.

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 10:16 AM

  −2 points

  in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Yes, that would seem to be the obvious answer. But the obvious answer isn’t necessarily the correct answer, so it seems like something at least worth discussing openly, doesn’t it?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 9:09 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: New cen­sor­ship: against hy­po­thet­i­cal vi­o­lence against iden­ti­fi­able people

  Fundamental civil liberties is also a fundamentally diseased concept.

  Please explain. (I’ve heard this argued before, but I’m curious what your particular angle on it is)

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 8:58 AM

  −4 points

  in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: New cen­sor­ship: against hy­po­thet­i­cal vi­o­lence against iden­ti­fi­able people

  I don’t think this censorship decision has a very meaningful impact either way on FAI.

  I disagree. One of the most common objections to the idea of FAI/​CEV is “so will this new god-like AI restrict fundamental civil liberties after it takes over?”

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 8:36 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: drethelin’s comment on: New cen­sor­ship: against hy­po­thet­i­cal vi­o­lence against iden­ti­fi­able people

  you have to realize the risks are far more on Eliezer than they are on any poster

  This, I think, is the fundamental point of diagreement here. The emotional valence is far greater on Eliezer than on us, but if we’re taking seriously the proposition that the singularity is coming in our lifetimes (and I do), then the risks are the same for all of us.

  His low tolerance responses and angry swearing are exactly what you should expect

  Angry swearing? Did I miss some posts? Link please.

  This is also why trying to point out his Okcupid profile as a PR snafu is a non sequitur.

  I suppose I should point out that when I referred earlier to Eliezer’s occasional lapses in judgement, I was absolutely NOT intending to refer to this. I wasn’t actively commenting at the time, but looking back on that episode, I found a lot of the criticism of Eliezer regarding his OKcupid profile to be downright offensive. When I first read the profile, I was actually incredibly impressed by the courage he displayed in not hiding anything about who he is.

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 7:35 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  OK. This is a question about what you would do if you were a transhuman FAI (or designing one).

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 7:20 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  This is a question about Ethics. Ethics are off topic for LW?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 6:47 AM

  −8 points

  in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Eugine’s comment is currently at zero, despite my upvote. So someone must have downvoted it.

  Why? I thought it was an extremely substantive contribution to the discussion. Do you not think we should be having this discussion at all?

  Why not, specifically?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 6:44 AM

  −7 points

  in reply to: fubarobfusco’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Even on Reddit, a question of this nature would not be censored.

  Aren’t we supposed to be better than Reddit?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 6:37 AM

  −1 points

  in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Off the top of my head, my response would be that for private prosecution to be ethically legitimate, it should require a victim in the jurisdiction in question. Was there a Canadian victim in that case? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly don’t know).

  Eliezer, do you consider this a valid question to be discussed on LW?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 6:32 AM

  −2 points

  in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  This is certainly a valid question, worthy of further debate.

  Eliezer, do you disagree?

• kodos96Dec 25, 2012, 6:06 AM

  −6 points

  in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I don’t dispute that. I consider it proof that trolling is not always without value.