If you have multiple outlier negative interactions with someone, and especially if they keep endlessly arguing with you when you give them lesser reprimands, then without a very large compensating upside yes you probably need to basically ban them from everything you can ban them from
Why? If “outlier negative interaction” is based on subjective feelings rather than objectively bad conduct, this amounts to saying that people with power should use to it to punish people they really dislike.
According to Samin, Habryka’s reaction to the latter included DMing Samin, “Please for the love of god fuck yourself [...] You are banned from everything I can ban you absolute fucking moron”. That is not the language of someone making a sober, considered ban decision for the good of the community; it’s the language of personal retaliation and vindictiveness. (To be clear, I thought both of Samin’s criticisms were pretty bad, but a policy of retaliating against critics is still distortionary if you don’t know how to only punish “the bad ones.”) I don’t see where the alleged “need to basically ban them from everything you can ban them from” is coming from. Less Online was a 700 person event! You can just not talk to people you dislike, as no doubt many attendees were already doing.
If you organize events for people, you should be able to exclude people who try really hard to destroy the things you care about including that specific event.
Maybe I cannot justify this on some libertarian philosophical whatever principles, but from the psychological perspective it seems clear—the predictable outcome of having to interact with such people is burning out.
you should be able to exclude people who try really hard to destroy the things you care about including that specific event.
What? Who said anything about trying really hard to destroy things? (Are you claiming that criticizing a thing amounts to “try[ing] really hard to destroy” it?)
the predictable outcome of having to interact with such people is burning out.
Sure, but you could accomplish that by saying “Don’t contact me again”, not “You are banned from everything I can ban you from.” (If they ignore the no-contact request, then you can ban them for that.) The language reveals the motivations: “Don’t contact me” is about protecting my inbox; “You are banned from everything I can ban you from” is about punishment.
Letting someone buy a ticket for a 700-person event that you’re co-organizing doesn’t entail interacting with them, because you’re not going to personally interact with most people at a 700-person event anyway (and if they need to talk to staff, they can talk to one of your co-organizers instead of you). There were a couple people at Less Online who I’m not on the friendliest of terms with, so I didn’t talk to them (even though I saw them in the same room as me several times), and that was fine. I didn’t need the power to exclude my enemies from mere physical proximity with me in order to enjoy the event (and I hope my enemies are civilized enough to feel the same way about me).
Why? If “outlier negative interaction” is based on subjective feelings rather than objectively bad conduct, this amounts to saying that people with power should use to it to punish people they really dislike.
My understanding is that in this case, the negative interactions consist of Samin posting criticism of Lightcone Infrastructure in November, and (this incident) Tweeting criticism of LessWrong moderation in May (where the Tweet in question said “heavily downvoted” but didn’t include the karma counter in the screenshot).
According to Samin, Habryka’s reaction to the latter included DMing Samin, “Please for the love of god fuck yourself [...] You are banned from everything I can ban you absolute fucking moron”. That is not the language of someone making a sober, considered ban decision for the good of the community; it’s the language of personal retaliation and vindictiveness. (To be clear, I thought both of Samin’s criticisms were pretty bad, but a policy of retaliating against critics is still distortionary if you don’t know how to only punish “the bad ones.”) I don’t see where the alleged “need to basically ban them from everything you can ban them from” is coming from. Less Online was a 700 person event! You can just not talk to people you dislike, as no doubt many attendees were already doing.
If you organize events for people, you should be able to exclude people who try really hard to destroy the things you care about including that specific event.
Maybe I cannot justify this on some libertarian philosophical whatever principles, but from the psychological perspective it seems clear—the predictable outcome of having to interact with such people is burning out.
What? Who said anything about trying really hard to destroy things? (Are you claiming that criticizing a thing amounts to “try[ing] really hard to destroy” it?)
Sure, but you could accomplish that by saying “Don’t contact me again”, not “You are banned from everything I can ban you from.” (If they ignore the no-contact request, then you can ban them for that.) The language reveals the motivations: “Don’t contact me” is about protecting my inbox; “You are banned from everything I can ban you from” is about punishment.
Letting someone buy a ticket for a 700-person event that you’re co-organizing doesn’t entail interacting with them, because you’re not going to personally interact with most people at a 700-person event anyway (and if they need to talk to staff, they can talk to one of your co-organizers instead of you). There were a couple people at Less Online who I’m not on the friendliest of terms with, so I didn’t talk to them (even though I saw them in the same room as me several times), and that was fine. I didn’t need the power to exclude my enemies from mere physical proximity with me in order to enjoy the event (and I hope my enemies are civilized enough to feel the same way about me).