Now it seems to me the problem with meta comments is that they are more expensive than normal comments.
As an example, if I write “tomorrow a robot army from China will destroy the world”, people can agree or disagree, upvote or downvote, but almost nobody thinks it is the topic which needs to be discussed, and there is almost zero risk that it will spawn half dozen meta articles tomorrow.
On the other hand, if I write “Eliezer is censoring this website and I am so going to write an article on RationalWiki about that”, suddenly most people want to express their agreement or disagreement, then I can go more meta and say “everyone who downvoted me only proves that LW hive mind is insane”, then a few confused contrarians will upvote my previous comments, to keep the controversy alive, then Eliezer joins, then a new moderation rule is proposed, half dozen meta articles are written, etc. Am I right?
Then it seems to me the best solution is to make writing meta comments more expensive, too. To make sure that people don’t start a nuclear war over triviality. If it is not worth for anyone to spend a few minutes preparing a solid argument, then it probably is not so important.
I propose this rule: Meta discussions should be forbidden and censored in comments on threads with a different topic. (How would you feel if you spent an afternoon writing a nice article for LessWrong, only to see that the discussion goes off topic and finishes in a flamewar about something completely unrelated to your article.) However, meta discussions and other forms of criticism are OK in form of well-written articles. Within some reasonable limits, of course, to prevent dozen meta articles on the same topic, or by the same person.
If it is not worth making a well-written article about, then it probably is not so important.
Also I would recommend a policy that meta comments and articles should be downvoted unless you agree with the argument and the way it was presented. (In other words, don’t be “useful idiots” and upvote trolls only to protect the diversity and fight censorship.) No, it does not mean that all constructive ideas would be supressed. Let me remind you that ideas like “make a separate subreddit for meetups” are typically upvoted heavily. Even the discussions about what is taboo and what is not, or the current minisequence connotationally accusing LessWrong of sexism, are relatively well accepted. The criticism of SIAI by Holder was upvoted and thoroughly discussed. So if something is not accepted well, let that be an evidence that there is something seriously wrong about that, and that it deserves to be downvoted and/or removed.
Every time you feed a troll, remember about the costs you have caused to everyone who has to deal with that. (I should more often remind myself about that, too.)
Meta discussions should be forbidden and censored in comments on threads with a different topic. (How would you feel if you spent an afternoon writing a nice article for LessWrong, only to see that the discussion goes off topic and finishes in a flamewar about something completely unrelated to your article.)
The problem with this rule is that on the same topic is not well defined. Arguably, the appearance of rituals to outsiders was on topic in a thread about rituals performed by some folks in this community.
If you think it’s not, downvote. If you’re not sure enough or think it is, don’t. The community’s opinion will become obvious.
Or were you suggesting a Great Definition Decree from the Benevolent Dictator is necessary? I don’t see why a significant amount of people would follow that definition rather than their own thoughts.
I’m not asking for a decree—I am concerned that Villiam_Bur underestimated the difficulty of creating such guidance. Specifically, I’m doubtful there is any consensus on what is or is not on topic from a particular discussion post.
Would writing “I find LW rituals creepy” be off topic on the Schelling Day post? Or rude for some other reason? Or just fine? I suspect there is no consensus at all, so suggestions otherwise should be met with a bunch of skepticism.
If you think it is off topic, downvote and reply with ‘downvoted for being meta and off-topic’. A consensus among the subset who read and vote on comments will emerge.
Now it seems to me the problem with meta comments is that they are more expensive than normal comments. [...] Then it seems to me the best solution is to make writing meta comments more expensive, too.
Upvoted for this, which is an admirably plausible formulation.
As for the proposed rule and policy, I continue to think that increasing compliance with “downvote what you want less of” would subsume most of the benefits of the various new policies being proposed, and I continue to be skeptical of the benefits of stating new policies where compliance with existing stated policies is the issue.
Then the right meta thing we need to do is: remind people that their (not) downvoting (or even upvoting of things they consider wrong, but feel it is fair to give them visibility because of some abstract principle) has consequences. Most obviously, the consequence of getting more of what they don’t downvote, or even upvote.
Next thing would be to emphasise that there are different forms of criticism, and that well-written criticism is typically well accepted (see Holden). Therefore we do not have to pay attention to trolling-style criticism.
Then, if someone sees a comment saying “okay, I know this is stupid and offensive, and was already said hundred times, but I upvoted it anyway because I think LessWrong needs dissenting voices”, it can be responded by a link to that article.
You decide it’s time for less meta, and more beta.
That doesn’t make sense.
Counter-proposal: Everyone, let’s just agree to downvote any discussion of moderation, moderators, downvoting, c?ns?rsh?p, and so on. Here’s why:
That’s a complementary proposal, not a counter-proposal. Unless you are advocating everyone getting reddit accounts and going there to systematically downvote.
Meta nerds (including rules lawyers), who should go play Nomic, Calvinball, Mao, or something.
Or, you know, they could go have meta discussions on reddit where it is none of your business unless you force it to be.
However, any prolonging of the discussion just makes it worse.
Getting such conversation off lesswrong has already achieved the practical objectives. Opposing outright exile of conversation in favour of the “counter-proposal” of keeping it present but everyone cooperating to actively disapprove of it via downvotes amounts to several steps in the wrong direction.
Your solution is optimised for moral indignation signalling, not practical consequences.
(Feel free to apply the above policy to this comment.)
You decide it’s time for less meta, and more beta.
Counter-proposal: Everyone, let’s just agree to downvote any discussion of moderation, moderators, downvoting, c?ns?rsh?p, and so on. Here’s why:
Prolonged discussions about moderation attract the attention of three sorts of people:
The moderators themselves, who have better things to do, and whose time should not be wasted;
Trolls, who should fuck the hell off as quickly as possible; and
Meta nerds (including rules lawyers), who should go play Nomic, Calvinball, Mao, or something.
However, any prolonging of the discussion just makes it worse. Shoot it. That is what the downvote button is for.
(Feel free to apply the above policy to this comment.)
I completely agree with your three points.
Now it seems to me the problem with meta comments is that they are more expensive than normal comments.
As an example, if I write “tomorrow a robot army from China will destroy the world”, people can agree or disagree, upvote or downvote, but almost nobody thinks it is the topic which needs to be discussed, and there is almost zero risk that it will spawn half dozen meta articles tomorrow.
On the other hand, if I write “Eliezer is censoring this website and I am so going to write an article on RationalWiki about that”, suddenly most people want to express their agreement or disagreement, then I can go more meta and say “everyone who downvoted me only proves that LW hive mind is insane”, then a few confused contrarians will upvote my previous comments, to keep the controversy alive, then Eliezer joins, then a new moderation rule is proposed, half dozen meta articles are written, etc. Am I right?
Then it seems to me the best solution is to make writing meta comments more expensive, too. To make sure that people don’t start a nuclear war over triviality. If it is not worth for anyone to spend a few minutes preparing a solid argument, then it probably is not so important.
I propose this rule: Meta discussions should be forbidden and censored in comments on threads with a different topic. (How would you feel if you spent an afternoon writing a nice article for LessWrong, only to see that the discussion goes off topic and finishes in a flamewar about something completely unrelated to your article.) However, meta discussions and other forms of criticism are OK in form of well-written articles. Within some reasonable limits, of course, to prevent dozen meta articles on the same topic, or by the same person.
If it is not worth making a well-written article about, then it probably is not so important.
Also I would recommend a policy that meta comments and articles should be downvoted unless you agree with the argument and the way it was presented. (In other words, don’t be “useful idiots” and upvote trolls only to protect the diversity and fight censorship.) No, it does not mean that all constructive ideas would be supressed. Let me remind you that ideas like “make a separate subreddit for meetups” are typically upvoted heavily. Even the discussions about what is taboo and what is not, or the current minisequence connotationally accusing LessWrong of sexism, are relatively well accepted. The criticism of SIAI by Holder was upvoted and thoroughly discussed. So if something is not accepted well, let that be an evidence that there is something seriously wrong about that, and that it deserves to be downvoted and/or removed.
Every time you feed a troll, remember about the costs you have caused to everyone who has to deal with that. (I should more often remind myself about that, too.)
The problem with this rule is that on the same topic is not well defined. Arguably, the appearance of rituals to outsiders was on topic in a thread about rituals performed by some folks in this community.
If you think it’s not, downvote. If you’re not sure enough or think it is, don’t. The community’s opinion will become obvious.
Or were you suggesting a Great Definition Decree from the Benevolent Dictator is necessary? I don’t see why a significant amount of people would follow that definition rather than their own thoughts.
I’m not asking for a decree—I am concerned that Villiam_Bur underestimated the difficulty of creating such guidance. Specifically, I’m doubtful there is any consensus on what is or is not on topic from a particular discussion post.
Would writing “I find LW rituals creepy” be off topic on the Schelling Day post? Or rude for some other reason? Or just fine? I suspect there is no consensus at all, so suggestions otherwise should be met with a bunch of skepticism.
If you think it is off topic, downvote and reply with ‘downvoted for being meta and off-topic’. A consensus among the subset who read and vote on comments will emerge.
Thanks. Your point is good, then.
Upvoted for this, which is an admirably plausible formulation.
As for the proposed rule and policy, I continue to think that increasing compliance with “downvote what you want less of” would subsume most of the benefits of the various new policies being proposed, and I continue to be skeptical of the benefits of stating new policies where compliance with existing stated policies is the issue.
Then the right meta thing we need to do is: remind people that their (not) downvoting (or even upvoting of things they consider wrong, but feel it is fair to give them visibility because of some abstract principle) has consequences. Most obviously, the consequence of getting more of what they don’t downvote, or even upvote.
Next thing would be to emphasise that there are different forms of criticism, and that well-written criticism is typically well accepted (see Holden). Therefore we do not have to pay attention to trolling-style criticism.
Then, if someone sees a comment saying “okay, I know this is stupid and offensive, and was already said hundred times, but I upvoted it anyway because I think LessWrong needs dissenting voices”, it can be responded by a link to that article.
Sure, I endorse all of this. (Well, at least if “the right thing we need to do” is replaced by “a useful thing we can do”.)
That doesn’t make sense.
That’s a complementary proposal, not a counter-proposal. Unless you are advocating everyone getting reddit accounts and going there to systematically downvote.
Or, you know, they could go have meta discussions on reddit where it is none of your business unless you force it to be.
Getting such conversation off lesswrong has already achieved the practical objectives. Opposing outright exile of conversation in favour of the “counter-proposal” of keeping it present but everyone cooperating to actively disapprove of it via downvotes amounts to several steps in the wrong direction.
Your solution is optimised for moral indignation signalling, not practical consequences.
Done.