[Question] LW authors: How many clusters of norms do you (personally) want?

note: this post is about gath­er­ing data for “what might the archipelago model look like if im­ple­mented on LW”, which is s sep­a­rate ques­tion from “should the archipelago model be im­ple­mented on LW?”

Pe­ri­od­i­cally, I’ve ar­gued for ap­ply­ing Archipelago-style norms to LessWrong (i.e. give peo­ple the tools to es­tab­lish differ­ent norms and cul­ture, then let them ex­per­i­ment how­ever they want, and let the best cul­tures at­tract par­ti­ci­pants)

One cost of this ap­proach is that it’s much harder to keep track of which space you’re in, and what the rules are. This could be di­s­ori­ent­ing.

There are var­i­ous ways to stream­line that pro­cess. For ex­am­ple, we could (and I ex­pect will, at least on desk­top com­put­ers) make it so that as soon as you start typ­ing a com­ment, the mod­er­a­tion norms for the rele­vant post ap­pear next to your com­ment box, so it’s much eas­ier to see what norms you’re ex­pected to fol­low.

But if there were *hun­dreds* of differ­ent types of norms, this might still get a bit be­wil­der­ing (in par­tic­u­lar if each set of norms had a lot of nu­ance to it), and place too high a bur­den on com­menters.

One thing I’m won­der­ing is how many differ­ent norm­sets there ac­tu­ally are de­mand for, among au­thors. (I do think it’s im­por­tant to ground this out in “what au­thors want” rather than “what com­menters want” since the au­thors are do­ing the bulk of the work, and the con­ver­sa­tions won’t hap­pen at all with­out them, with the caveat that I think it’s a fine out­come for an au­thor to write a post with one set of com­ment-norms, and some­one who prefers other norms to write up a post ti­tled “Dis­cussing Bob’s Post X” that sets differ­ent norms).

Knobs that I could imag­ine an au­thor want­ing to turn in­clude:

  • Do you want feed­back on writ­ing style?

    • (pos­si­bly with differ­ent an­swers for ty­pos, high level struc­ture, etc)

  • Is there a par­tic­u­lar con­ver­sa­tion you’re try­ing to have? Is there a product you’re try­ing to build? Or are your mostly just throw­ing your ideas out into the wild and see what hap­pens?

  • Should com­menters re­late to your post as if it’s in a playful/​cre­ative/​ex­plo­ra­tory stage, or more of a finished product that you want judged pro­fes­sion­ally (or some­where else on a spec­trum?

  • Do you pre­fer that you (and each com­menter) be re­spon­si­ble for jus­tify­ing their ideas, or do you pre­fer com­menters who are helping each other and you to figure out whether an idea is good?

  • How much do you ex­pect peo­ple to own their own emo­tional state?

  • Is this in­tended to be a 101-dis­cus­sion (or, a “201” dis­cus­sion where par­ti­ci­pants have read the se­quences and ma­jor-up­voted-posts-since-then, but not nec­es­sar­ily much else), or are you knee deep in a par­tic­u­lar frame and you aren’t in­ter­ested in com­menters who don’t share that frame?

It’d be con­ve­nient if this turned out to com­press into 2-4 ma­jor sets of norms (which could then be made clearly vi­su­ally dis­tinct)

As an au­thor, or as a per­son who thinks they’d ac­tively be mo­ti­vated to write posts akin to “Dis­cussing Bob’s Ideas X through Norm­set Z”, what are the com­ment­ing norms you’d want to have?