Unfortunately I do not think there are clear bright-line rules that would fix these problems, as clear bright-line rules are close to non-existent in social situations like this (what is the clear and ambiguous bright line rule that would delineate a sufficient note at the top?). The closest that I found was to allow authors to moderate their own post, which we did implement and Said has been vehemently opposed to in ways I talk about in the OP.
Beyond that, I also don’t think your characterization that this was in response to a fully-general request to be more tactful or “prosocial” is accurate. The question Elizabeth asked just before most of the quote above is:[1]
But if you’re saying “it’s comment exactly as you are, or nothing”… I honestly don’t know what our decision is, I’d have to talk with the other mods
To which Said responded with most of the quoted section above. Like, yeah, Elizabeth didn’t propose a specific clear line rule, but this exchange to me does not leave the door open for suggesting such clear rules, or suggesting further compromises.
Of course you’re right that there are no perfectly clear bright-line rules that would completely fix these problems, the question is whether there is a clear enough rule that would ameliorate the problems. You would have substituted a judgment call on whether all of Said’s comments across the whole site were on net beneficial, with a much easier judgment call on whether a given note is sufficient or not. And whether Said’s comments were net beneficial was evidently such a close call that you dithered about this decision for literal years, which would seem to indicate that a relatively small nudge would have tipped his contributions to the positive side.
Also, if the door to Said changing his behavior was so completely closed, I’m really confused about what all those hundreds of hours were spent on.
which would seem to indicate that a relatively small nudge would have tipped his contributions to the positive side.
Just to be clear, this overall does not strike me as a close call. The situation seems to me more related to the section on “Crimes that are harder to catch should be more socially punished” plus some other dynamics. My epistemic state changed a lot over the years, but not in a way that would result in thin margins, but in a way where some important consideration, or some part of my model would shift, and this would switch things from “in expectation this is extremely costly” to “in expectation what Said is doing is quite important”.
Something being a difficult call to make does not generally mean that it also needed to be a close call.
Also, if the door to Said changing his behavior was so completely closed, I’m really confused about what all those hundreds of hours were spent on.
I mean, we tried anyways, but I do think it was overall a mistake and a reasonable thing to do at the time would have been to respond with “well, sorry, if you as a commenter are already pre-empting that you are not willing to change basically at all based on moderator feedback, then yeah, goodbye, farewell, goodluck, we really need more cooperation than that”. Elizabeth advocated for this IIRC, and I instead tried to make things work out. I think Elizabeth was ultimately right here.
Unfortunately I do not think there are clear bright-line rules that would fix these problems, as clear bright-line rules are close to non-existent in social situations like this (what is the clear and ambiguous bright line rule that would delineate a sufficient note at the top?). The closest that I found was to allow authors to moderate their own post, which we did implement and Said has been vehemently opposed to in ways I talk about in the OP.
Beyond that, I also don’t think your characterization that this was in response to a fully-general request to be more tactful or “prosocial” is accurate. The question Elizabeth asked just before most of the quote above is:[1]
To which Said responded with most of the quoted section above. Like, yeah, Elizabeth didn’t propose a specific clear line rule, but this exchange to me does not leave the door open for suggesting such clear rules, or suggesting further compromises.
If Said and Elizabeth both agree I could share the full transcript, but don’t want to do so unilaterally.
Of course you’re right that there are no perfectly clear bright-line rules that would completely fix these problems, the question is whether there is a clear enough rule that would ameliorate the problems. You would have substituted a judgment call on whether all of Said’s comments across the whole site were on net beneficial, with a much easier judgment call on whether a given note is sufficient or not. And whether Said’s comments were net beneficial was evidently such a close call that you dithered about this decision for literal years, which would seem to indicate that a relatively small nudge would have tipped his contributions to the positive side.
Also, if the door to Said changing his behavior was so completely closed, I’m really confused about what all those hundreds of hours were spent on.
Just to be clear, this overall does not strike me as a close call. The situation seems to me more related to the section on “Crimes that are harder to catch should be more socially punished” plus some other dynamics. My epistemic state changed a lot over the years, but not in a way that would result in thin margins, but in a way where some important consideration, or some part of my model would shift, and this would switch things from “in expectation this is extremely costly” to “in expectation what Said is doing is quite important”.
Something being a difficult call to make does not generally mean that it also needed to be a close call.
I mean, we tried anyways, but I do think it was overall a mistake and a reasonable thing to do at the time would have been to respond with “well, sorry, if you as a commenter are already pre-empting that you are not willing to change basically at all based on moderator feedback, then yeah, goodbye, farewell, goodluck, we really need more cooperation than that”. Elizabeth advocated for this IIRC, and I instead tried to make things work out. I think Elizabeth was ultimately right here.