Did any of the really valuable contributors to LW go away because they were driven away by incessant criticism? You think Scott Alexander moved to SSC because he couldn’t handle the downvotes?
Didn’t Eliezer say somewhere that he posts on Facebook instead of LW nowadays because on LW you get dragged into endless point-scoring arguments with dedicated forum arguers and on Facebook you just block commenters who come off as too tiresome to engage with from your feed?
As far as I understand (it isn’t very far), Eliezer prefers Facebook basically because it gives him control—which is perfectly fine, his place on FB is his place and he sets the rules.
I don’t think that degree of control would be acceptable on LW—the local crowd doesn’t like tyrants, even wise and benevolent.
If Eliezer would bans someone on LW on the other hand he would get a storm of criticism.
I’m curious what solution would work here.
Suppose you had a list of ~10 users with ‘censor’ power, and the number of censors who have ‘remonstrated’ a user is public, possibly also with the remonstrations. “Don’t be a jerk,” or “don’t promote other sites in your early posts,” or “think before you speak,” or so on. If a sufficient number of censors have remonstrated a user, then they’re banned, but censors can lift their remonstration once it’s no longer appropriate.
Thoughts on this solution:
Reasoning is clear and transparent, and gradual. Instead of “all clear” suddenly turning to “can’t post anymore,” people are put ‘on notice.’
If which censor has remonstrated a user is hidden, it isn’t “Eliezer” using his dictatorial powers; it’s some moderator moderating.
If which censor has remonstrated a user is hidden, the drama might multiply rather than decrease. Now an offending user can message the entire group of censors, pleading to have their remonstration removed, or complain bitterly that clearly it was their enemy who is a censor, regardless of whether or not that was actually the person that remonstrated with them.
If three out of ten moderators agree that a poster should stop posting, then it becomes much easier to defend the action to remove the poster.
But it doesn’t really get at the heart of the issue. Eliezer acts that way because of the Roko affair and people telling him that he shouldn’t have moderated.
In that case the decision being made by three people instead of one wouldn’t have made it more defensible.
This forum currently has MIRI ties that make controversial moderating decisions reflect badly on MIRI.
A solution would be to cut those ties and give LW into the hand of a small group of moderators who are more free to focus on what’s good for the community instead of larger PR effects.
Didn’t Eliezer say somewhere that he posts on Facebook instead of LW nowadays because on LW you get dragged into endless point-scoring arguments with dedicated forum arguers and on Facebook you just block commenters who come off as too tiresome to engage with from your feed?
As far as I understand (it isn’t very far), Eliezer prefers Facebook basically because it gives him control—which is perfectly fine, his place on FB is his place and he sets the rules.
I don’t think that degree of control would be acceptable on LW—the local crowd doesn’t like tyrants, even wise and benevolent.
On the LW facebook group Eliezer bans occasionally bans people who post really low quality content. The same goes for his own feed.
If Eliezer would bans someone on LW on the other hand he would get a storm of criticism.
I’m curious what solution would work here.
Suppose you had a list of ~10 users with ‘censor’ power, and the number of censors who have ‘remonstrated’ a user is public, possibly also with the remonstrations. “Don’t be a jerk,” or “don’t promote other sites in your early posts,” or “think before you speak,” or so on. If a sufficient number of censors have remonstrated a user, then they’re banned, but censors can lift their remonstration once it’s no longer appropriate.
Thoughts on this solution:
Reasoning is clear and transparent, and gradual. Instead of “all clear” suddenly turning to “can’t post anymore,” people are put ‘on notice.’
If which censor has remonstrated a user is hidden, it isn’t “Eliezer” using his dictatorial powers; it’s some moderator moderating.
If which censor has remonstrated a user is hidden, the drama might multiply rather than decrease. Now an offending user can message the entire group of censors, pleading to have their remonstration removed, or complain bitterly that clearly it was their enemy who is a censor, regardless of whether or not that was actually the person that remonstrated with them.
If three out of ten moderators agree that a poster should stop posting, then it becomes much easier to defend the action to remove the poster.
That’s a bureaucratic solution.
But it doesn’t really get at the heart of the issue. Eliezer acts that way because of the Roko affair and people telling him that he shouldn’t have moderated. In that case the decision being made by three people instead of one wouldn’t have made it more defensible.
This forum currently has MIRI ties that make controversial moderating decisions reflect badly on MIRI. A solution would be to cut those ties and give LW into the hand of a small group of moderators who are more free to focus on what’s good for the community instead of larger PR effects.