If it’s a mod telling you with the implication that it’s fine, then yeah, it’s not defecting and is good. In that case I think it should be an explicit feature in some way!
I mean I think it can be abused, and the use case where I was informed of it was a different use case (making substantial edits to a post). I do not know that they necessary approve of republishing for this particular use case.
But the alternative to republishing for this particular use case is just reposting the question as an entirely new post which seems strictly worse.
Of course there is also the alternative of not reposting the question. What’s possibly defecty is that maybe lots of people want their thing to have more attention, so it’s potentially a tragedy of the commons. Saying “well, just have those people who most want to repost their thing, repost their thing” could in theory work, but it seems wrong in practice, like you’re just opening up to people who don’t value others’s attention enough.
One could also ask specific people to comment on something, if LW didn’t pick it up.
A lot of LessWrong actually relies on just trusting users not to abuse the site/features.
I make judgment calls on when to repost keeping said trust in mind.
And if reposts were a nuisance people could just mass downvote reposts.
But in general, I think it’s misguided to try and impose a top down moderation solution given that the site already relies heavily on user trust/judgment calls.
This repost hasn’t actually been a problem and is only being an issue because we’re discussing whether it’s a problem or not.
lesswrong has a bug that allows people to restore their posts to “new” status on the frontpage by moving them to draft and then back.
Uh, this seems bad and anti-social? This bug/feature should either be made an explicit feature, or is a bug, and using it is defecting. @Ruby
I mean I think it’s fine.
I have not experienced the feature being abused.
In this case I didn’t get any answers the last time I posted it and ended up needing answers so I’m reposting.
Better than posting the entire post again as a new post and losing the previous conversation (which is what would happen if not for this feature).
Like what’s the argument that it’s defecting? There are just legitimate reasons to repost stuff and you can’t really stop users from reposting stuff.
FWIW, it was a mod that informed me of this feature.
If it’s a mod telling you with the implication that it’s fine, then yeah, it’s not defecting and is good. In that case I think it should be an explicit feature in some way!
I mean I think it can be abused, and the use case where I was informed of it was a different use case (making substantial edits to a post). I do not know that they necessary approve of republishing for this particular use case.
But the alternative to republishing for this particular use case is just reposting the question as an entirely new post which seems strictly worse.
Of course there is also the alternative of not reposting the question. What’s possibly defecty is that maybe lots of people want their thing to have more attention, so it’s potentially a tragedy of the commons. Saying “well, just have those people who most want to repost their thing, repost their thing” could in theory work, but it seems wrong in practice, like you’re just opening up to people who don’t value others’s attention enough.
One could also ask specific people to comment on something, if LW didn’t pick it up.
A lot of LessWrong actually relies on just trusting users not to abuse the site/features.
I make judgment calls on when to repost keeping said trust in mind.
And if reposts were a nuisance people could just mass downvote reposts.
But in general, I think it’s misguided to try and impose a top down moderation solution given that the site already relies heavily on user trust/judgment calls.
This repost hasn’t actually been a problem and is only being an issue because we’re discussing whether it’s a problem or not.