The thing that banning does is make it so the author doesn’t look like he is ignoring critics (which he hasn’t by the time he has consciously decided to ban a critic).
… of course banning has this effect, but this is obviously a massively misleading appearance in that case, so why would we want this? You seem to be describing a major downside of allowing authors to ban critics!
Like, suppose that I read a post, see that the author responds to all critical comments, and think: “Cool, this dude doesn’t ignore critics; on the contrary, he replies coherently and effectively to all critical comments; well done! This makes me quite confident that this post in particular doesn’t have any glaring flaws (since someone would point them out, and the author would have no good answer); and, more generally, it makes me think that this author is honest and unafraid to face criticism, and has thought about his ideas, and so is unlikely to be spouting nonsense.”
And then later I find out that actually, this author has banned one or more users from his posts after those users posted seriously critical comments for which the author had no good responses; and I think “… oh.”
Because that initial impression was clearly wrong, wasn’t it? It was based on a completely mistaken premise. I was misled! And deliberately misled, too. I based my initial conclusion on the lack of a certain sort of evidence (which I, conditional on the contrary hypothesis, would’ve expected to see); but it turns out that said evidence was in fact deliberately suppressed.
This not only cancels out that initial conclusion, but makes me update past the neutral state, in the opposite direction.
Yeah, I agree this would be bad if it happened. I don’t currently think it’s happening, but see my response to sunwillrise on what I would do if it turned out to be an issue.
I also am really not interested in this discussion with you in-particular. You alone are like 30% of the reason why a ban system on this site is necessary. I think this site might have literally died if we had you and not a ban system, so it appears to me that you in-particular seem to particularly fail to understand the purpose of a ban system. I could not in good faith encourage someone to post on LW if they did not have the option of banning you and an extremely small number of other users from their post.
Yeah, I agree this would be bad if it happened. I don’t currently think it’s happening
I… don’t understand what this could mean. I didn’t describe some totally different phenomenon; I just described the thing you already said was the purpose of the ban system! How could it not be happening??
you in-particular seem to particularly fail to understand the purpose of a ban system
No, I understand quite well what you claim is the purpose of a ban system (as you have taken the time to explain your thinking on this, numerous times, and at some length). That is not the source of our disagreement at all.
You think that there are (some? many?) authors whose contributions are valuable (such that it would be better to have those authors’ posts on LW than not to have them), but who experience such severe mental discomfort from being criticized (or even having their ideas challenged or questioned) in a sufficiently direct way that if they expect this to happen in response to posts they write on LW, then they will prefer not to write posts on LW.
You believe that this is a loss for the forum, for the “rationalist community”, maybe for humanity as a whole, etc. Therefore, by letting those authors ban anyone they want from commenting on their posts, you enable those authors to post on LW as they please, without fear of the aforementioned mental discomfort; and this, according to you, is a gain for all relevant parties/groups, and advances the goals of Less Wrong. The counterfactual loss of the comments that will not be posted as a result of such bans is insignificant by comparison (although regrettable ceteris paribus).
There’s nothing confusing or difficult to understand about this view. The only trouble is that it’s thoroughly and egregiously mistaken.
If you don’t want to discuss this with me, well, that’s your right, of course. But I hope you can see why this unwillingness is quite predictable, conditional on the assumption that I’m simply correct about this.
No you have strawmaned my position while asserting facts about my mental state with great confidence. As I have said in another thread, I have uniquely little interest in discussing this with you, so I won’t respond further.
… of course banning has this effect, but this is obviously a massively misleading appearance in that case, so why would we want this? You seem to be describing a major downside of allowing authors to ban critics!
Like, suppose that I read a post, see that the author responds to all critical comments, and think: “Cool, this dude doesn’t ignore critics; on the contrary, he replies coherently and effectively to all critical comments; well done! This makes me quite confident that this post in particular doesn’t have any glaring flaws (since someone would point them out, and the author would have no good answer); and, more generally, it makes me think that this author is honest and unafraid to face criticism, and has thought about his ideas, and so is unlikely to be spouting nonsense.”
And then later I find out that actually, this author has banned one or more users from his posts after those users posted seriously critical comments for which the author had no good responses; and I think “… oh.”
Because that initial impression was clearly wrong, wasn’t it? It was based on a completely mistaken premise. I was misled! And deliberately misled, too. I based my initial conclusion on the lack of a certain sort of evidence (which I, conditional on the contrary hypothesis, would’ve expected to see); but it turns out that said evidence was in fact deliberately suppressed.
This not only cancels out that initial conclusion, but makes me update past the neutral state, in the opposite direction.
Yeah, I agree this would be bad if it happened. I don’t currently think it’s happening, but see my response to sunwillrise on what I would do if it turned out to be an issue.
I also am really not interested in this discussion with you in-particular. You alone are like 30% of the reason why a ban system on this site is necessary. I think this site might have literally died if we had you and not a ban system, so it appears to me that you in-particular seem to particularly fail to understand the purpose of a ban system. I could not in good faith encourage someone to post on LW if they did not have the option of banning you and an extremely small number of other users from their post.
I… don’t understand what this could mean. I didn’t describe some totally different phenomenon; I just described the thing you already said was the purpose of the ban system! How could it not be happening??
No, I understand quite well what you claim is the purpose of a ban system (as you have taken the time to explain your thinking on this, numerous times, and at some length). That is not the source of our disagreement at all.
You think that there are (some? many?) authors whose contributions are valuable (such that it would be better to have those authors’ posts on LW than not to have them), but who experience such severe mental discomfort from being criticized (or even having their ideas challenged or questioned) in a sufficiently direct way that if they expect this to happen in response to posts they write on LW, then they will prefer not to write posts on LW.
You believe that this is a loss for the forum, for the “rationalist community”, maybe for humanity as a whole, etc. Therefore, by letting those authors ban anyone they want from commenting on their posts, you enable those authors to post on LW as they please, without fear of the aforementioned mental discomfort; and this, according to you, is a gain for all relevant parties/groups, and advances the goals of Less Wrong. The counterfactual loss of the comments that will not be posted as a result of such bans is insignificant by comparison (although regrettable ceteris paribus).
There’s nothing confusing or difficult to understand about this view. The only trouble is that it’s thoroughly and egregiously mistaken.
If you don’t want to discuss this with me, well, that’s your right, of course. But I hope you can see why this unwillingness is quite predictable, conditional on the assumption that I’m simply correct about this.
No you have strawmaned my position while asserting facts about my mental state with great confidence. As I have said in another thread, I have uniquely little interest in discussing this with you, so I won’t respond further.