Meta note to the mods: I’d personally prefer posts with this level of personal dispute not to make it onto the frontpage, even if they are used as a frame to argue more general points.
I don’t think I agree with “used as a frame to argue more general points”? I think the general points are core to the conflict, and most of what is being discussed.
Like, if two people are disagreeing over theories of physics, and the debate gets heated, it’s still the case that posts showing the evidence and arguments between the two theories are timeless and good, even if it’s motivated by a personal conflict.
I don’t know, there’s still something about this post I don’t like, which is that if I showed up and had no context (and in fact I didn’t because I didn’t read the post this is responding to and didn’t realize it was also on the frontpage), my reaction would be “uh, what kind of site is this where personal beef is front and center?” (as it was my actual reaction was “oh, I thought this might be something worth reading, but it’s just Zack beefing with someone again, so I quickly skimmed it, saw more beefing, and then I skipped looking at it closely).
(And just to be super clear, I think it’s quite reasonable to post this on LessWrong, just personally for me I don’t like that it ended up on the frontpage, which is what I’m registering here, even if that ends up being inconsistent with the mod team’s promotion principles.)
I think it’s appropriate for some ppl to be alarmed that this can happen to you here. And I agree it’s sad for ppl to be openly hostile to others in an ongoing way (tbc I think the quote of Duncan‘s in the OP is this more than anything in the rest of the OP by Zack.).
To be clear, I think it was obviously correct for “Truth or Dare” to be Frontpaged (it was definitely relevant and timeless, even if I disagree with it); I’m saying I don’t think it’s consistent for a direct response to a Frontpage (Curated!) post to somehow not qualify for Frontpage.
(It wasn’t obvious the post you are responding to was made on LW, since the text of your post only links to Duncan’s blog, not to the post on LW. I think the distinction between that post being from just Duncan’s blog vs. also LW specifically is a crux for flagging this on LW being reasonable. Though it’s still a delicate balance to avoid encouraging infinite feuds, inciting events unavoidably have externalities in making responses to them possible or necessary. A little bit of anything like that is never a problem directly, but it gets to feed relevant norms a little bit, making it less convenient to course correct later.)
Thanks; I edited the link (on this Less Wrong mirrorpost).
encouraging infinite feuds
“Feuds”, is that really what people think? (I think it’s fine for people to criticize me, and that it’s fine for me to reply.) I’m really surprised at the contrast between the karma and the comment section on this one—currently 10 karma in 26 votes (0.38 karma/vote). Usually when I score that poorly, it’s because I really messed up on substance, and there’s a high-karma showstopper comment explaining what I got so wrong, but none of the comments here seem like showstoppers.
As an edge-case, I can imagine a frontpage post making a cutting remark about a person while still overall meeting the frontpage criteria, and then a person writing a response post just addressing the personal aspects of the cutting remark, and that not meeting the frontpage criteria.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening here though, this reads to me as substantively engaging (critically) with the core / thrust of the frontpage post it’s responding to.
Meta note to the mods: I’d personally prefer posts with this level of personal dispute not to make it onto the frontpage, even if they are used as a frame to argue more general points.
I don’t think I agree with “used as a frame to argue more general points”? I think the general points are core to the conflict, and most of what is being discussed.
Like, if two people are disagreeing over theories of physics, and the debate gets heated, it’s still the case that posts showing the evidence and arguments between the two theories are timeless and good, even if it’s motivated by a personal conflict.
I don’t know, there’s still something about this post I don’t like, which is that if I showed up and had no context (and in fact I didn’t because I didn’t read the post this is responding to and didn’t realize it was also on the frontpage), my reaction would be “uh, what kind of site is this where personal beef is front and center?” (as it was my actual reaction was “oh, I thought this might be something worth reading, but it’s just Zack beefing with someone again, so I quickly skimmed it, saw more beefing, and then I skipped looking at it closely).
(And just to be super clear, I think it’s quite reasonable to post this on LessWrong, just personally for me I don’t like that it ended up on the frontpage, which is what I’m registering here, even if that ends up being inconsistent with the mod team’s promotion principles.)
I think it’s appropriate for some ppl to be alarmed that this can happen to you here. And I agree it’s sad for ppl to be openly hostile to others in an ongoing way (tbc I think the quote of Duncan‘s in the OP is this more than anything in the rest of the OP by Zack.).
Do you have the same objection to the post I’m responding to getting Frontpaged (and in fact, Curated)?
To be clear, I think it was obviously correct for “Truth or Dare” to be Frontpaged (it was definitely relevant and timeless, even if I disagree with it); I’m saying I don’t think it’s consistent for a direct response to a Frontpage (Curated!) post to somehow not qualify for Frontpage.
(It wasn’t obvious the post you are responding to was made on LW, since the text of your post only links to Duncan’s blog, not to the post on LW. I think the distinction between that post being from just Duncan’s blog vs. also LW specifically is a crux for flagging this on LW being reasonable. Though it’s still a delicate balance to avoid encouraging infinite feuds, inciting events unavoidably have externalities in making responses to them possible or necessary. A little bit of anything like that is never a problem directly, but it gets to feed relevant norms a little bit, making it less convenient to course correct later.)
Thanks; I edited the link (on this Less Wrong mirrorpost).
“Feuds”, is that really what people think? (I think it’s fine for people to criticize me, and that it’s fine for me to reply.) I’m really surprised at the contrast between the karma and the comment section on this one—currently 10 karma in 26 votes (0.38 karma/vote). Usually when I score that poorly, it’s because I really messed up on substance, and there’s a high-karma showstopper comment explaining what I got so wrong, but none of the comments here seem like showstoppers.
As an edge-case, I can imagine a frontpage post making a cutting remark about a person while still overall meeting the frontpage criteria, and then a person writing a response post just addressing the personal aspects of the cutting remark, and that not meeting the frontpage criteria.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening here though, this reads to me as substantively engaging (critically) with the core / thrust of the frontpage post it’s responding to.
I was unaware it was on the frontpage (I thought Duncan didn’t post on LW anymore).