Fwiw I’ve found Said’s comments to be clear, crisp and valuable. I don’t recall being ever annoyed by his comments and found him a most useful bloodhound for bad epistemic practices and rhetorics. Many cases that Said’s comment is the only good, clear, and crisp critic of vagueposting and applauselighting.
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.
Despite my disagreement I endorse Habryka unilaterally taking these kinds of decisions and approve of his transparency and conduct in this matter.
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.
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.
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:
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.
As another outside observer I also got the impression that the Duncan conflict was the most significant of the ones leading up to the ban, since he wrote a giant post advocating for banning Said, left the site in a huff shortly thereafter, and seems to be the main example of a top contributor by your lights who said they didn’t post due to Said.
Nah, you can see in the moderation history that we threatened Said with bans and moderation actions for many years before then. My honest best guess is that we would have banned Said somewhat earlier if not for the Duncan thread, though that we also wouldn’t have given him a rate-limit around that time, but it’s of course hard to tell.
My experience was that Said’s behavior in the Duncan thread was among the most understandable cases of him behaving badly (because I too have found myself ending up drawn into conflicts with Duncan that end up quite aggressive and at least tempt me to behave badly). That’s part why I don’t link to any comments of his in the thread above (I might somewhere in there, but if so it’s not intended as a particularly load-bearing part of the case).
Fwiw I’ve found Said’s comments to be clear, crisp and valuable. I don’t recall being ever annoyed by his comments and found him a most useful bloodhound for bad epistemic practices and rhetorics. Many cases that Said’s comment is the only good, clear, and crisp critic of vagueposting and applauselighting.
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.
Despite my disagreement I endorse Habryka unilaterally taking these kinds of decisions and approve of his transparency and conduct in this matter.
Farewell, lesswrong gadfly. You will be missed.
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:
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.
As another outside observer I also got the impression that the Duncan conflict was the most significant of the ones leading up to the ban, since he wrote a giant post advocating for banning Said, left the site in a huff shortly thereafter, and seems to be the main example of a top contributor by your lights who said they didn’t post due to Said.
Nah, you can see in the moderation history that we threatened Said with bans and moderation actions for many years before then. My honest best guess is that we would have banned Said somewhat earlier if not for the Duncan thread, though that we also wouldn’t have given him a rate-limit around that time, but it’s of course hard to tell.
My experience was that Said’s behavior in the Duncan thread was among the most understandable cases of him behaving badly (because I too have found myself ending up drawn into conflicts with Duncan that end up quite aggressive and at least tempt me to behave badly). That’s part why I don’t link to any comments of his in the thread above (I might somewhere in there, but if so it’s not intended as a particularly load-bearing part of the case).