The thing I am saying here is that Said’s engagements with Duncan in that comment thread are not the cause of me banning him. It doesn’t say anything about Duncan’s complaints which long preceded that engagement!
If that’s your position, fine, but it does not straightforwardly follow from what you wrote. You were responding to Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel’s comment:
The examples in this post don’t seem compelling at all. One of the primary examples seems to be Duncan who comes off [from a distance] as thin-skinned and obscurantist, emotionally blowing up at very fair criticism.
This is my view too. I remember once trying (I think on Facebook) to gently talk him out of being really angry at someone for making what I thought was a reasonable criticism, and he ended up getting mad at me too.
I don’t think I link to a single Duncan/Said interaction in any of the core narratives of the post. I do link the moderation judgement of the previous Said/Duncan thread, but it’s not the bulk of this post.
Like none of these comments:
[image of comments]
link to any threads between Said and Duncan.
And the moderation judgement in the Said/Duncan also didn’t really have much to do with Said’s conduct in that thread, but with his conduct on the site in general.
You might still not find the examples compelling, but there is basically no engagement with Duncan that played any kind of substantial role in any of this.
Based on both your comment and the context, it looked like you were referring to Duncan/Said interactions in general, not to a specific thread.
I even clarify directly in the comments on this post:
Your clarification does not appear anywhere under Alexander’s original top-level comment. The comments total over 70,000 words, so I do not think it is fair to accuse me of misrepresenting you because I missed a clarification elsewhere.
excluding datapoints about which author “counts” by your own lights, based on whether they played a role in the banning decision is confused, because no author complaints ended up load-bearing for the banning decision.
Fair enough. My true reason for not counting Duncan is that he appears to be an unusually sensitive individual, who often gets mad at people without good reason. I was quoting you to establish (as a non-controversial, “bipartisan” point) that Said’s interactions with Duncan were not ban-worthy.
Sure, I am not saying your misreading of what I intended to convey was totally unreasonable, but it definitely wasn’t accurate to what I meant to convey and things I said in other places. I didn’t mean to imply much of any malice in you doing so and am sorry if it came across that way!
I personally think what I wrote was reasonably clear, but communication is hard, especially in a sprawling comment thread like this. Seems like we mostly cleared it up (and I can edit the OP comment with any edits, or transfer ownership fully over to you, if you want to change what you wrote in response to that).
Edit: Maybe a misunderstanding in this and other threads is that somehow you expect most people who complain about Said did so after they had comment threads with Said? That’s definitely not the case! Most people who complain about Said never had a long back-and-forth with him, they formed their impressions from his engagements with other people. Most effects from Said are chilling effects, not something that you should have any expectations to chase back to a specific comment thread (as is the case with most cultural effects, as well as effects from moderation).
I don’t think this is a fair accusation.
If that’s your position, fine, but it does not straightforwardly follow from what you wrote. You were responding to Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel’s comment:
Wei Dai then chimed in:
You responded to Alexander (emphasis added):
Based on both your comment and the context, it looked like you were referring to Duncan/Said interactions in general, not to a specific thread.
Your clarification does not appear anywhere under Alexander’s original top-level comment. The comments total over 70,000 words, so I do not think it is fair to accuse me of misrepresenting you because I missed a clarification elsewhere.
Fair enough. My true reason for not counting Duncan is that he appears to be an unusually sensitive individual, who often gets mad at people without good reason. I was quoting you to establish (as a non-controversial, “bipartisan” point) that Said’s interactions with Duncan were not ban-worthy.
Sure, I am not saying your misreading of what I intended to convey was totally unreasonable, but it definitely wasn’t accurate to what I meant to convey and things I said in other places. I didn’t mean to imply much of any malice in you doing so and am sorry if it came across that way!
I personally think what I wrote was reasonably clear, but communication is hard, especially in a sprawling comment thread like this. Seems like we mostly cleared it up (and I can edit the OP comment with any edits, or transfer ownership fully over to you, if you want to change what you wrote in response to that).
Edit: Maybe a misunderstanding in this and other threads is that somehow you expect most people who complain about Said did so after they had comment threads with Said? That’s definitely not the case! Most people who complain about Said never had a long back-and-forth with him, they formed their impressions from his engagements with other people. Most effects from Said are chilling effects, not something that you should have any expectations to chase back to a specific comment thread (as is the case with most cultural effects, as well as effects from moderation).
Yes, your reply makes your position clear. I don’t feel like taking the time to edit my comment, but thank you for offering to edit in any changes.
Also, you definitely have my sympathy for the amount of time you have burned on this! I would not want your job.