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.
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.