Note: Duncan has blocked Zack from commenting on his posts, so Zack can’t respond here.
I’m almost certain that I’ve commented on this before, and I really don’t mean to start that conversation again… but since you’ve mentioned, elsethread, my potential disagreements with Duncan on rule/norm enforcement, etc., I will note for the record that I think this facility of the forum (authors blocking individual members from commenting on their posts) is maybe the single worst-for-rational-discussion feature of Less Wrong. (I haven’t done an exhaustive survey of the forum software’s features and ranked them on this axis, hence “maybe”; but I can’t easily think of a worse one.)
Maybe placing a button that leads to a list of blocked users under each post (with a Karma threshold to avoid mentioning blocked users that could be spammers or something, with links to optional explanations for individual decisions) would get the best of both worlds? Something you don’t need to search for. (I’d also add mandatory bounds on durations of bans. Banning indefinitely is unnecessarily Azkaban.) Right now AFAIK this information is private, so even moderators shouldn’t discretionally reveal it, unless it’s retelling of public info already available elsewhere. (Edit: It’s not private, thanks to Said Achmiz for pointing this out.)
Being able to protect your posts seems important to some people, and an occasional feud makes it a valuable alternative to involvement of moderators. But not seeing the filtering acting on a debate hurts clarity of its perception.
So it is, thanks for pointing this out. I’ve even seen this before, but since forgot to the point of not being aware of this existing when writing my comment. From the way Duncan phrased his reply he either also wasn’t aware of this, or there is a way of banning users privately as opposed to publicly, so that these decisions don’t show up on that page.
This is exactly the kind of situation I meant to rule out by saying that the list of banned users should be directly accessible from each affected post, as something you don’t need to search for.
Yes, sure, if you’re going to allow people to ban users from their posts, the list of these banned users should be prominently displayed on each post. But this is a fairly weak mitigation. Much better to not have the feature in the first place.
If we instead had a culture that would ban Zack for confidently, emphatically, and with-no-hedges calling other users insane when he hasn’t even finished reading their claim, it would be less necessary. I have very few users blocked in this way.
But such a culture would be bad, so it is good that we don’t have it.
I haven’t seen this comment you refer to (I gather it’s been deleted or edited), so I will refrain from opining on whether perhaps some mild censure would be warranted for such. Certainly this is not out of the question.
I have very few users blocked in this way.
This hardly makes it better, and I think you can probably see why.
I (tentatively, since we haven’t had a real discussion and it would be silly to be confident) think the culture you are envisioning is made of fabricated options.
(Link is to a specific section discussing block lists in particular.)
In particular, I think you underestimate the corrosive power of a flood of bullshit, and how motivated some people are to produce that flood. Concentration of Force also feels relevant here (and yes, I see the irony).
I (tentatively, since we haven’t had a real discussion and it would be silly to be confident) think the culture you are envisioning is made of fabricated options.
(Link is to a specific section discussing block lists in particular.)
That entire argument (which I’d read before, but re-read now) seems to me to be wrongheaded in so many different ways that I’d have to write a response at least twice as long to untangle it. Certainly the sort of (indeed straw) view you describe has almost nothing in common with my view on the matter; and it also entirely fails to mention what I consider the most important aspect of the question. There are also background assumptions which I consider to be totally wrong, implied values which seem to me to be thoroughly undesirable, etc.
In particular, I think you underestimate the corrosive power of a flood of bullshit, and how motivated some people are to produce that flood.
I think I’d have to see some examples of what you’re thinking of here before I could have any opinion on whatever this is.
Concentration of Force also feels relevant here (and yes, I see the irony).
Could you elaborate? What exactly is the relevance?
That entire argument (which I’d read before, but re-read now) seems to me to be wrongheaded in so many different ways that I’d have to write a response at least twice as long to untangle it.
Just giving you an opportunity to hang “this is wrongheaded” on something more legible than “Said opaquely asserts that it is so.” Perfectly fine for you not to feel like taking it.
I’m almost certain that I’ve commented on this before, and I really don’t mean to start that conversation again… but since you’ve mentioned, elsethread, my potential disagreements with Duncan on rule/norm enforcement, etc., I will note for the record that I think this facility of the forum (authors blocking individual members from commenting on their posts) is maybe the single worst-for-rational-discussion feature of Less Wrong. (I haven’t done an exhaustive survey of the forum software’s features and ranked them on this axis, hence “maybe”; but I can’t easily think of a worse one.)
Maybe placing a button that leads to a list of blocked users under each post (with a Karma threshold to avoid mentioning blocked users that could be spammers or something, with links to optional explanations for individual decisions) would get the best of both worlds? Something you don’t need to search for. (I’d also add mandatory bounds on durations of bans. Banning indefinitely is unnecessarily Azkaban.) Right now AFAIK this information is private, so even moderators shouldn’t discretionally reveal it, unless it’s retelling of public info already available elsewhere. (Edit: It’s not private, thanks to Said Achmiz for pointing this out.)
Being able to protect your posts seems important to some people, and an occasional feud makes it a valuable alternative to involvement of moderators. But not seeing the filtering acting on a debate hurts clarity of its perception.
Isn’t this info visible at https://www.lesswrong.com/moderation ?
So it is, thanks for pointing this out. I’ve even seen this before, but since forgot to the point of not being aware of this existing when writing my comment. From the way Duncan phrased his reply he either also wasn’t aware of this, or there is a way of banning users privately as opposed to publicly, so that these decisions don’t show up on that page.
This is exactly the kind of situation I meant to rule out by saying that the list of banned users should be directly accessible from each affected post, as something you don’t need to search for.
Yes, sure, if you’re going to allow people to ban users from their posts, the list of these banned users should be prominently displayed on each post. But this is a fairly weak mitigation. Much better to not have the feature in the first place.
(I was not aware but also am fortunately not ashamed of my blocks, so)
I made my block of Zack public, so Ray has not done anything amiss.
If we instead had a culture that would ban Zack for confidently, emphatically, and with-no-hedges calling other users insane when he hasn’t even finished reading their claim, it would be less necessary. I have very few users blocked in this way.
But such a culture would be bad, so it is good that we don’t have it.
I haven’t seen this comment you refer to (I gather it’s been deleted or edited), so I will refrain from opining on whether perhaps some mild censure would be warranted for such. Certainly this is not out of the question.
This hardly makes it better, and I think you can probably see why.
I (tentatively, since we haven’t had a real discussion and it would be silly to be confident) think the culture you are envisioning is made of fabricated options.
(Link is to a specific section discussing block lists in particular.)
In particular, I think you underestimate the corrosive power of a flood of bullshit, and how motivated some people are to produce that flood. Concentration of Force also feels relevant here (and yes, I see the irony).
That entire argument (which I’d read before, but re-read now) seems to me to be wrongheaded in so many different ways that I’d have to write a response at least twice as long to untangle it. Certainly the sort of (indeed straw) view you describe has almost nothing in common with my view on the matter; and it also entirely fails to mention what I consider the most important aspect of the question. There are also background assumptions which I consider to be totally wrong, implied values which seem to me to be thoroughly undesirable, etc.
I think I’d have to see some examples of what you’re thinking of here before I could have any opinion on whatever this is.
Could you elaborate? What exactly is the relevance?
Please, do so.
That would be exactly the sort of “starting that conversation again” that I said I didn’t want to do…
Just giving you an opportunity to hang “this is wrongheaded” on something more legible than “Said opaquely asserts that it is so.” Perfectly fine for you not to feel like taking it.