most of what i want to say is about The Sneer Attractor and The Niceness Attractor, and unrelated to Said. is there some canonical post on that? i think this part of the post should have been separate post, that allow discussion of that.
***
This is Bad: Elizabeth said roughly “if you don’t change your behavior in some way you’ll be banned” He did not change his behavior, we did not end up banning him at this time, and he also did not stop participating on LW.
as in, it make things LW stuff say untrustworthy, and LW team should not do that. empty threats are bad, and they especially bad in place that try to develop and act on some version of Decision Theory.
***
also, all those hours and all this time look like waste to me. aka—in my model, most of the time invested in here didn’t generate original thoughts and was just running the same things on repeat. so if i was part of the LW team, i was asking myself “How could I have thought that faster?” or rather, how could i came to the same decision, while skipping the useless waste.
***
there is an option that look obvious to me looking at this situation. when someone provide both important positive value on axis x and important negative on y, then worries about glossing the important x can and should be alleviated bu trying to acquire x in some other way, without the y downsides.
in my model, Said provided both positive x and negative y in his writing here. (and i don’t actually count the ReadTheQequences and GreaterWrong, as i don’t use them. GW is probably slightly net-negative to me) in his best, what he provide is not just avoiding the Niceness Attractor, but reminding of important rational principals, and i did gain a lot from his comments. i don’t actually know who to get this positive x.
while summing all, i pretty sure it would have been better to ban his sooner, but i also gained a lot from reading his writing, and will be happy to read him in other places. it’s important to me, while summing this all, to see both the positive contributions and the negative. they both real, and don’t cancel each other. i think it was the right decision, in the end. but it’s sad we don’t have the option to have only the e good without the bad. it’s a really good good, and i expect to encounter illuminating comments from Said in the future, as i read old posts. i hope to see him in other places.
most of what i want to say is about The Sneer Attractor and The Niceness Attractor, and unrelated to Said. is there some canonical post on that? i think this part of the post should have been separate post, that allow discussion of that.
***
This is Bad:
Elizabeth said roughly “if you don’t change your behavior in some way you’ll be banned”
He did not change his behavior, we did not end up banning him at this time, and he also did not stop participating on LW.
as in, it make things LW stuff say untrustworthy, and LW team should not do that. empty threats are bad, and they especially bad in place that try to develop and act on some version of Decision Theory.
***
also, all those hours and all this time look like waste to me. aka—in my model, most of the time invested in here didn’t generate original thoughts and was just running the same things on repeat. so if i was part of the LW team, i was asking myself “How could I have thought that faster?” or rather, how could i came to the same decision, while skipping the useless waste.
***
there is an option that look obvious to me looking at this situation. when someone provide both important positive value on axis x and important negative on y, then worries about glossing the important x can and should be alleviated bu trying to acquire x in some other way, without the y downsides.
in my model, Said provided both positive x and negative y in his writing here. (and i don’t actually count the ReadTheQequences and GreaterWrong, as i don’t use them. GW is probably slightly net-negative to me) in his best, what he provide is not just avoiding the Niceness Attractor, but reminding of important rational principals, and i did gain a lot from his comments. i don’t actually know who to get this positive x.
while summing all, i pretty sure it would have been better to ban his sooner, but i also gained a lot from reading his writing, and will be happy to read him in other places. it’s important to me, while summing this all, to see both the positive contributions and the negative. they both real, and don’t cancel each other. i think it was the right decision, in the end. but it’s sad we don’t have the option to have only the e good without the bad. it’s a really good good, and i expect to encounter illuminating comments from Said in the future, as i read old posts. i hope to see him in other places.