a negative-sum game, where we lose because the damn spoiler is still up, and you lose by losing all your karma, and we ALL lose by wasting time debating this back and forth.
Not everyone is losing. For example, I’ve been enjoying this. I doubt I’m the only one.
For example, I’ve been enjoying this. I doubt I’m the only one.
First time it can be amusing, but if such situation would repeat often, the amusement would fade and the costs would stay. So I cooperate with my future selves by resisting to act on my amusement.
First time it can be amusing, but if such situation would repeat often, the amusement would fade and the costs would stay.
I can’t tell if you’re telling me I don’t actually enjoy this or if you’re threatening me with promises that time will deliver retribution.
I cooperate with my future selves
Things like this are why I can’t convince my friends that you guys aren’t a “system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” I don’t know what you’re saying but I’ll bet p>0.75 there’s a way to say it without sounding like a fucking time traveler.
EDIT: I mean to say that you use phrases that reference something common to some group you belong to, but uncommon to the public majority. I could say you sound like you come from fairy land or a phyg or outer space, but saying that you sound like you come from another time seemed the most apt until I noticed the phrase I criticized said something about your future selves. Maybe that’s why I thought of time travel. I wasn’t taking you literally.
I’m threatening you that time may deliver more discussions about whether we should or shouldn’t rot-13 the spoilers, how exactly the spoiler is defined, etc… and that can become rather boring.
And by the way, I am a time traveller, I just always move in the same direction with a constant speed.
Actually, I would say that this whole affair was a net positive. It brought to light an issue that I’m sure some of us believe should be reformed. At this point I’ve gotten most of my karma back, and a lot of people have gained karma, so I’d say karma is up overall. Rationalists cannot agree to disagree, so when we argue correctly, we become stronger. I suppose I was briefly frustrated by this and its possible that some animosity sprung up here and there, but in the end we’re all really friends here trying to talk about a story we enjoy, and this was undeniably amusing.
At this point I’ve gotten most of my karma back, and a lot of people have gained karma, so I’d say karma is up overall.
With regards to karma, most of the comments on LW have positive karma, very few have negative. So by mere participation in a long discussion people gain karma, unless they do something very wrong and refuse to give up.
This does not directly contradict what you said. Most of discussions are added value on LW. I just suspect that the karma does not reflect utility precisely; positive votes are given more cheaply than negative votes. (An exaggerated example: if someone writes something bad and gets −10 karma, and two people react with “stop doing this!” and get +5 karma each, the total balance is 0, but the total utility is negative.) Also chronical procrastinators like me probably have a bias against recognizing the opportunity cost of time spent reading comments, which makes us ignore comments that—judged strictly by the utility they give us—should be downvoted.
This is just a speculation about the nature of karma on LW. I don’t think that you did something horrible here, and I consider the downvoting of the offending comment a sufficient fix. But next time be more careful, because on this site torturing a person for 50 years is considered appropriate to avoid 3^^^3 readers getting spoilers in their eyes. :D
there will be a Singularity, the human race will survive and greatly expand through the universe;
some of those future humans will be interested in history;
LessWrong site and HP:MoR will be among the important historical artifacts, and their contents will be preserved.
Of course each of these assumptions is open to discussion, but if you give non-zero probability to each of them, the inevitable logical conclusion follows.
Not everyone is losing. For example, I’ve been enjoying this. I doubt I’m the only one.
First time it can be amusing, but if such situation would repeat often, the amusement would fade and the costs would stay. So I cooperate with my future selves by resisting to act on my amusement.
I can’t tell if you’re telling me I don’t actually enjoy this or if you’re threatening me with promises that time will deliver retribution.
Things like this are why I can’t convince my friends that you guys aren’t a “system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” I don’t know what you’re saying but I’ll bet p>0.75 there’s a way to say it without sounding like a fucking time traveler.
EDIT: I mean to say that you use phrases that reference something common to some group you belong to, but uncommon to the public majority. I could say you sound like you come from fairy land or a phyg or outer space, but saying that you sound like you come from another time seemed the most apt until I noticed the phrase I criticized said something about your future selves. Maybe that’s why I thought of time travel. I wasn’t taking you literally.
EDIT II: Son of Edit: Phyg
I’m threatening you that time may deliver more discussions about whether we should or shouldn’t rot-13 the spoilers, how exactly the spoiler is defined, etc… and that can become rather boring.
And by the way, I am a time traveller, I just always move in the same direction with a constant speed.
Point taken, though.
Actually, I would say that this whole affair was a net positive. It brought to light an issue that I’m sure some of us believe should be reformed. At this point I’ve gotten most of my karma back, and a lot of people have gained karma, so I’d say karma is up overall. Rationalists cannot agree to disagree, so when we argue correctly, we become stronger. I suppose I was briefly frustrated by this and its possible that some animosity sprung up here and there, but in the end we’re all really friends here trying to talk about a story we enjoy, and this was undeniably amusing.
With regards to karma, most of the comments on LW have positive karma, very few have negative. So by mere participation in a long discussion people gain karma, unless they do something very wrong and refuse to give up.
This does not directly contradict what you said. Most of discussions are added value on LW. I just suspect that the karma does not reflect utility precisely; positive votes are given more cheaply than negative votes. (An exaggerated example: if someone writes something bad and gets −10 karma, and two people react with “stop doing this!” and get +5 karma each, the total balance is 0, but the total utility is negative.) Also chronical procrastinators like me probably have a bias against recognizing the opportunity cost of time spent reading comments, which makes us ignore comments that—judged strictly by the utility they give us—should be downvoted.
This is just a speculation about the nature of karma on LW. I don’t think that you did something horrible here, and I consider the downvoting of the offending comment a sufficient fix. But next time be more careful, because on this site torturing a person for 50 years is considered appropriate to avoid 3^^^3 readers getting spoilers in their eyes. :D
I would never have guessed that we had that many readers.
It depends on a few assumptions:
there will be a Singularity, the human race will survive and greatly expand through the universe;
some of those future humans will be interested in history;
LessWrong site and HP:MoR will be among the important historical artifacts, and their contents will be preserved.
Of course each of these assumptions is open to discussion, but if you give non-zero probability to each of them, the inevitable logical conclusion follows.
(Also, I am joking.)
Wouldn’t transhumans with sufficiently modified minds probably have the cognitive ability necessary to guess the spoiler?
I actually agree, Although it is rather exasperating to argue against a larger group of people.