After an interaction that did not go well, Alicorn asked you not to reply to her comments. This means “don’t pester me” (or more succinctly, “go away”). This is one of a small number of standard messages which all neurotypicals expect each other to be able to recognize reliably and to pick out of subtext.
Ok, that’s ridiculous. Comments on LW are part of a large group discussion. A person can tell someone else to stop bugging them or emailing them or calling them, but it is not reasonable to ask someone to not make public comments on LW. No one has the right to do that, any more than I have the right to say “stop using the Internet; it bugs me.”
A person can tell someone else to stop bugging them or emailing them or calling them, but it is not reasonable to ask someone to not make public comments on LW.
True, but that’s not the request that was made. She asked him to stop making comments which specifically single her out.
Sorry, jimrandomh, but you are flatly wrong here, and this misunderstanding underpins your entire criticism. Alicorn has asked that I not post any comments as a reply to hers, even if they don’t single her out, and even if they involve asking others not to mod her down because of the context of her comment! See here, and here.
Now, please revise your diplomatic comments in light of this new information.
(The funniest part is how Alicorn keeps appealing to her own non-neurotypicality, despite my being the only one accused of missing something due to non-NT. Go fig.)
The most accurate phrasing of the intended meaning of Alicorn’s request is the one I wrote in my first post: “do not try to pull me into a conversation with you by any means”. A direct reply does that; it singles out the author of the parent, to a degree that depends on how easily someone else could step in and take their place in the conversation. Non-reply comments also do that if they name her; she didn’t explicitly say that wasn’t allowed, but “leave me the fuck alone” should’ve covered it.
The most accurate phrasing of the intended meaning of Alicorn’s request is the one I wrote in my first post: “do not try to pull me into a conversation with you by any means”.
Except that I stated what I took the request to mean, and she agreed with that. And “do no try to pull me into a conversation …” just ain’t part of it. Take, for example, this comment and this one. Off limits? Well, Alicorn certainly reserves the right to make such comments on my top-level posts. And it doesn’t obligate her to respond directly.
So you still appear very confused about the topic you’re opining on so strongly and confidently.
A direct reply does that;
Not even close: see here, another major example of Alicorn saying what is and is not okay. The comment I made, though nested under her comment, does not in any way draw her into a conversation, because it is a remark about someone else. It is not addressed to her, but to the group in general, regarding a different poster. Still off limits, for some reason.
Is it starting to dawn on you how you’ve misinterpreted Alicorn’s past demands, and why you should maybe withdraw your misconception -rounded, “noble” criticism of me from earlier?
Not even close: see here, another major example of Alicorn saying what is and is not okay. The comment I made, though nested under her comment, does not in any way draw her into a conversation, because it is a remark about someone else. It is not addressed to her, but to the group in general, regarding a different poster. Still off limits, for some reason.
I see two problems with your selected case.
First, you appeared to violate the stated version of the rule. You need a better reason just to create that appearance than wanting to make a jocular remark.
Second, jocular remarks are drawing people into conversations—they’re probably the number-one way to draw someone into a conversation. People joke around with people that they like, and Alicorn does not like you.
I had no idea the concept of “jocular” even applied at the time (and remember, the aspie defense can only be used by Alicorn, not me!) I still don’t see how such a remark somehow draws Alicorn to post further (maybe in real life, in-person situations that might be true?).
Does anyone really see why that general, light-hearted jab at Mitchell somehow gives Alicorn a social obligation to continue?
As for violating the stated rule, my (quite reasonable) understanding at the time (though not anymore) was that the mere nesting of the comment doesn’t matter; what matters is who it’s directed at. And from context, it’s clear it’s a general, big-picture remark bout Mitchell’s theory’s inadequacy. (And a bit of a rude one, but not to Alicorn.)
So it’s far from obvious I was doing anything wrong at the time—but apparently, even defending Alicorn for saying “leave me the fuck alone” is blatant disregard for her—go fig!
Your defense of Alicorn is at +1. Your original remark is at −6. This is because the former comment was appropriate, and the latter not.
Edit 5/27: I have been reminded that the primary reason given for downvoting the original comment was that it was rude, not that it was a reply to Alicorn—I had forgotten this, and left a misleading impression as a consequence.
I hope you know this already, but your social coprocessor is crap, dude. You really need to put in some hard work developing a better set of heuristics, because you’ve been making a lot of blunders, and it’s turning people off.
Your defense of Alicorn is at +1. Your original remark is at −6. This is because the former comment was appropriate, and the latter not.
The defense of Alicorn was at 0 earlier today, and long ago it went negative very quickly. It has nothing to do with appropriateness and everything to do with Alicorn wanting to impose unreasonable rules on me out of some misguided spite.
I hope you know this already, but your social coprocessor is crap, dude.
Thanks—I’m glad that won’t work as a self-fulfilling prophesy or anything, and it’s not the kind of thing you could have said privately—very thoughtful of you.
You really need to put in some hard work developing a better set of heuristics, because you’ve been making a lot of blunders, and it’s turning people off.
Well, I’m glad to know that on a site like LW, I will be given more patience because of the understanding of non-neurotypicality, so long as you use Alicorn rather than SilasBarta as your handle.
Thanks—I’m glad that won’t work as a self-fulfilling prophesy or anything, and it’s not the kind of thing you could have said privately—very thoughtful of you.
SilasBarta, let me tell you something. I am bad with names. Very, very bad with names. So bad that I know a guy who made bet that I wouldn’t know the name of his friend, who I had been hanging out with for years—and won the bet. If someone tells me in public, “Robin, you are terrible with names”, I have no grounds whatsoever to take that as an insult. It would be like being insulted that people thought I was a man. I have a beard, no breasts, and worse recall for names than the average parakeet, and all these things are painfully obvious in a short period of time.
SIlasBarta, you get caught up in more flamewars than almost anyone on Less Wrong. Drop the conspiracy theorists and you’re a lock. That’s a warning sign, man, just as much as the crazy differential between people knowing my name and my knowing theirs—it’s a clue that you’re in the wrong tail of the distribution. If you want to say that Alicorn is on the same side of the peak, I won’t argue with you, but that’s Alicorn’s problem, not yours. You need to figure out what you’re doing that can explain why the population gets peeved at you more often than it does at other people, because the difference is too large to explain by chance.
Ok, that’s ridiculous. Comments on LW are part of a large group discussion. A person can tell someone else to stop bugging them or emailing them or calling them, but it is not reasonable to ask someone to not make public comments on LW. No one has the right to do that, any more than I have the right to say “stop using the Internet; it bugs me.”
True, but that’s not the request that was made. She asked him to stop making comments which specifically single her out.
Sorry, jimrandomh, but you are flatly wrong here, and this misunderstanding underpins your entire criticism. Alicorn has asked that I not post any comments as a reply to hers, even if they don’t single her out, and even if they involve asking others not to mod her down because of the context of her comment! See here, and here.
Now, please revise your diplomatic comments in light of this new information.
(The funniest part is how Alicorn keeps appealing to her own non-neurotypicality, despite my being the only one accused of missing something due to non-NT. Go fig.)
The most accurate phrasing of the intended meaning of Alicorn’s request is the one I wrote in my first post: “do not try to pull me into a conversation with you by any means”. A direct reply does that; it singles out the author of the parent, to a degree that depends on how easily someone else could step in and take their place in the conversation. Non-reply comments also do that if they name her; she didn’t explicitly say that wasn’t allowed, but “leave me the fuck alone” should’ve covered it.
Except that I stated what I took the request to mean, and she agreed with that. And “do no try to pull me into a conversation …” just ain’t part of it. Take, for example, this comment and this one. Off limits? Well, Alicorn certainly reserves the right to make such comments on my top-level posts. And it doesn’t obligate her to respond directly.
So you still appear very confused about the topic you’re opining on so strongly and confidently.
Not even close: see here, another major example of Alicorn saying what is and is not okay. The comment I made, though nested under her comment, does not in any way draw her into a conversation, because it is a remark about someone else. It is not addressed to her, but to the group in general, regarding a different poster. Still off limits, for some reason.
Is it starting to dawn on you how you’ve misinterpreted Alicorn’s past demands, and why you should maybe withdraw your misconception -rounded, “noble” criticism of me from earlier?
I see two problems with your selected case.
First, you appeared to violate the stated version of the rule. You need a better reason just to create that appearance than wanting to make a jocular remark.
Second, jocular remarks are drawing people into conversations—they’re probably the number-one way to draw someone into a conversation. People joke around with people that they like, and Alicorn does not like you.
I had no idea the concept of “jocular” even applied at the time (and remember, the aspie defense can only be used by Alicorn, not me!) I still don’t see how such a remark somehow draws Alicorn to post further (maybe in real life, in-person situations that might be true?).
Does anyone really see why that general, light-hearted jab at Mitchell somehow gives Alicorn a social obligation to continue?
As for violating the stated rule, my (quite reasonable) understanding at the time (though not anymore) was that the mere nesting of the comment doesn’t matter; what matters is who it’s directed at. And from context, it’s clear it’s a general, big-picture remark bout Mitchell’s theory’s inadequacy. (And a bit of a rude one, but not to Alicorn.)
So it’s far from obvious I was doing anything wrong at the time—but apparently, even defending Alicorn for saying “leave me the fuck alone” is blatant disregard for her—go fig!
Your defense of Alicorn is at +1. Your original remark is at −6. This is because the former comment was appropriate, and the latter not.
Edit 5/27: I have been reminded that the primary reason given for downvoting the original comment was that it was rude, not that it was a reply to Alicorn—I had forgotten this, and left a misleading impression as a consequence.
I hope you know this already, but your social coprocessor is crap, dude. You really need to put in some hard work developing a better set of heuristics, because you’ve been making a lot of blunders, and it’s turning people off.
The defense of Alicorn was at 0 earlier today, and long ago it went negative very quickly. It has nothing to do with appropriateness and everything to do with Alicorn wanting to impose unreasonable rules on me out of some misguided spite.
Thanks—I’m glad that won’t work as a self-fulfilling prophesy or anything, and it’s not the kind of thing you could have said privately—very thoughtful of you.
Well, I’m glad to know that on a site like LW, I will be given more patience because of the understanding of non-neurotypicality, so long as you use Alicorn rather than SilasBarta as your handle.
SilasBarta, let me tell you something. I am bad with names. Very, very bad with names. So bad that I know a guy who made bet that I wouldn’t know the name of his friend, who I had been hanging out with for years—and won the bet. If someone tells me in public, “Robin, you are terrible with names”, I have no grounds whatsoever to take that as an insult. It would be like being insulted that people thought I was a man. I have a beard, no breasts, and worse recall for names than the average parakeet, and all these things are painfully obvious in a short period of time.
SIlasBarta, you get caught up in more flamewars than almost anyone on Less Wrong. Drop the conspiracy theorists and you’re a lock. That’s a warning sign, man, just as much as the crazy differential between people knowing my name and my knowing theirs—it’s a clue that you’re in the wrong tail of the distribution. If you want to say that Alicorn is on the same side of the peak, I won’t argue with you, but that’s Alicorn’s problem, not yours. You need to figure out what you’re doing that can explain why the population gets peeved at you more often than it does at other people, because the difference is too large to explain by chance.
Request reason for downmod.