It should be mentioned explicitly here—as it has been in the discussion in the other thread, and as I know you have seen since you replied to it—that JoshuaZ reports precisely the sort of “karma assassination” behaviour you describe, in connection with the same topic.
I agree and even considered mentioning JoshuaZ’s reports as further evidence that not only is there a distinction between the two but that in this case there are probably far more representative targets you could point to which would allow you to champion your (inferred, primary) cause without hindrance due to the actual expressed petition.
But that is plainly not what was happening, because only comments on one side of the issue were sitting at gratuitously low values relative to, for want of a better term, their topic-agnostic merit.
‘Topic agnostic merit’ would be misleading. If the topic were to go through a translation device that removed information about the topic but preserved reasoning style and social-political implications the comments would still be easily distinguishable. For some the problem with the topic is that it inevitably produces a certain type of thinking. It not merely the topic that one must be agnostic to. It is better to refer simply to your subjective evaluation of merit, which is at least unarguable.
I am not sure why you think the word “campaign” is appropriate
It seems the best word for it. By all means provide a better word or phrase that expresses the same thing with sufficiently few words. The word is connotatively neutral to me. You have my support in your conditional on it being a against karma-assassination and not a against downvoting the kind of comment that you mentioned. I am declaring my own against the latter but pointing at the karma-assassination target as a way for you to achieve your goal without opposition or controversy..
, though I can see why you might find it rhetorically convenient.
No, I’m good and virtuous and you are sinister and I see through you because I am insightful and sophisticated! (ie. I reject those connotations, but lets move on. We’re both being as forthright and straightforward as we can be here, not deviously rhetorical.)
The particular comment I linked to was primarily addressing the question: What fraction of HPMOR readers are female? It justified a guess (explicitly stated to be only a guess) that the fraction is on the order of 1⁄2 by observing (1) that among HPMOR readers of the writer’s own acquaintance the fraction is close to that, even though the writer knows substantially more men than women, and (2) that the readership of fanfiction generally skews female.
Even without any translation of that comment—with nothing other than removing it from the context of an argument with the word “feminism” in it—what about it would be “easily distinguishable” or exhibit a problematic “certain type of thinking”? What about its social-political implications would be unusual?
I suggest that the answer is: Nothing at all. (Which is one reason why I chose that comment as providing evidence that at least some of JoshuaZ’s recent downvoters have been playing the man rather than the ball.)
(I think the bits about the term “campaign” weren’t there when I replied before, hence the separate reply.)
OK, all noted. How about the following? (Which I hope will both clarify my position and get past debates about potentially tendentious terminology.)
I have a that LW should have, and actively enforce, strong community norms against would-be intimidatory mass-downvoting that isn’t (even in principle) justified by the demerits of the comments being downvoted.
You (if I’ve understood you right) this proposal.
I am not that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting-gjm-dislikes, or anything of that kind,
and of course I would not expect you to any such .
I am also not that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting comments on the basis of their subject matter (as opposed to their merits given the subject matter)
and—though I failed, at least initially, to make this clear—I don’t think it credible that that alone explains what I’ve been characterizing as would-be intimidatory downvoting of JoshuaZ’s comments.
And, again, I would not expect you to any such and I understand your reasons for wanting to what you took to be such a on my part.
Though, as it happens, I dislike many instances of this sort of topic-based downvoting and think it would be a bad thing if there were a concerted effort to prevent LW discussions of sexism, feminism, etc., in connection with HPMOR. I understand that you disagree, and repeat that what I am is not for this sort of topic-based downvoting to be prevented, forbidden, or punished.
[EDITED once shortly after posting, for clarity only.]
I have a that LW should have, and actively enforce, strong community norms against would-be intimidatory mass-downvoting that isn’t (even in principle) justified by the demerits of the comments being downvoted.
‘Intimidation’ is a world like ‘manipulation’ in as much as it refers to influence provoking behaviours which is somewhat fuzzy and depends rather a lot on desired connotations. ‘Intimidation’ inherent in the purpose of the karma system. Users are granted the (trivial) power to use against comments so that users are intimidated out of posting things that aren’t wanted.
There are instances of intimidation that are undesirable and others that work as intended. We both acknowledge that some downvotes that cause intimidation need preventing. We disagree on some cases. I’d also perhaps focus on the ‘punitive’ and ‘systematic’ aspects more so than ‘intimidatory’.
and—though I failed, at least initially, to make this clear—I don’t think it credible that that alone explains what I’ve been characterizing as would-be intimidatory downvoting of JoshuaZ’s comments.
Conditional on JoshuaZ having recently experienced karma-assassination it seems unlikely that this comment would be an exception. Yet there are other obvious influences and confounding factors (topic-based downvoting for instance) that are also at play (as my testimony indicates). That is enough for me to force a clarification. I am happy with the specification you provided in the parent. Best of luck with your efforts!
Though, as it happens, I dislike many instances of this sort of topic-based downvoting and think it would be a bad thing if there were a concerted effort to prevent LW discussions of sexism, feminism, etc., in connection with HPMOR.
I thought similarly once. Observations of many such conversations changed my mind. Fortunately Reddit exists. There are plenty of other places to take the mind killing where it would be far more relevant and suitable.
I agree and even considered mentioning JoshuaZ’s reports as further evidence that not only is there a distinction between the two but that in this case there are probably far more representative targets you could point to which would allow you to champion your (inferred, primary) cause without hindrance due to the actual expressed petition.
‘Topic agnostic merit’ would be misleading. If the topic were to go through a translation device that removed information about the topic but preserved reasoning style and social-political implications the comments would still be easily distinguishable. For some the problem with the topic is that it inevitably produces a certain type of thinking. It not merely the topic that one must be agnostic to. It is better to refer simply to your subjective evaluation of merit, which is at least unarguable.
It seems the best word for it. By all means provide a better word or phrase that expresses the same thing with sufficiently few words. The word is connotatively neutral to me. You have my support in your conditional on it being a against karma-assassination and not a against downvoting the kind of comment that you mentioned. I am declaring my own against the latter but pointing at the karma-assassination target as a way for you to achieve your goal without opposition or controversy..
No, I’m good and virtuous and you are sinister and I see through you because I am insightful and sophisticated! (ie. I reject those connotations, but lets move on. We’re both being as forthright and straightforward as we can be here, not deviously rhetorical.)
The particular comment I linked to was primarily addressing the question: What fraction of HPMOR readers are female? It justified a guess (explicitly stated to be only a guess) that the fraction is on the order of 1⁄2 by observing (1) that among HPMOR readers of the writer’s own acquaintance the fraction is close to that, even though the writer knows substantially more men than women, and (2) that the readership of fanfiction generally skews female.
Even without any translation of that comment—with nothing other than removing it from the context of an argument with the word “feminism” in it—what about it would be “easily distinguishable” or exhibit a problematic “certain type of thinking”? What about its social-political implications would be unusual?
I suggest that the answer is: Nothing at all. (Which is one reason why I chose that comment as providing evidence that at least some of JoshuaZ’s recent downvoters have been playing the man rather than the ball.)
(I think the bits about the term “campaign” weren’t there when I replied before, hence the separate reply.)
OK, all noted. How about the following? (Which I hope will both clarify my position and get past debates about potentially tendentious terminology.)
I have a that LW should have, and actively enforce, strong community norms against would-be intimidatory mass-downvoting that isn’t (even in principle) justified by the demerits of the comments being downvoted.
You (if I’ve understood you right) this proposal.
I am not that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting-gjm-dislikes, or anything of that kind,
and of course I would not expect you to any such .
I am also not that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting comments on the basis of their subject matter (as opposed to their merits given the subject matter)
and—though I failed, at least initially, to make this clear—I don’t think it credible that that alone explains what I’ve been characterizing as would-be intimidatory downvoting of JoshuaZ’s comments.
And, again, I would not expect you to any such and I understand your reasons for wanting to what you took to be such a on my part.
Though, as it happens, I dislike many instances of this sort of topic-based downvoting and think it would be a bad thing if there were a concerted effort to prevent LW discussions of sexism, feminism, etc., in connection with HPMOR. I understand that you disagree, and repeat that what I am is not for this sort of topic-based downvoting to be prevented, forbidden, or punished.
[EDITED once shortly after posting, for clarity only.]
‘Intimidation’ is a world like ‘manipulation’ in as much as it refers to influence provoking behaviours which is somewhat fuzzy and depends rather a lot on desired connotations. ‘Intimidation’ inherent in the purpose of the karma system. Users are granted the (trivial) power to use against comments so that users are intimidated out of posting things that aren’t wanted.
There are instances of intimidation that are undesirable and others that work as intended. We both acknowledge that some downvotes that cause intimidation need preventing. We disagree on some cases. I’d also perhaps focus on the ‘punitive’ and ‘systematic’ aspects more so than ‘intimidatory’.
Conditional on JoshuaZ having recently experienced karma-assassination it seems unlikely that this comment would be an exception. Yet there are other obvious influences and confounding factors (topic-based downvoting for instance) that are also at play (as my testimony indicates). That is enough for me to force a clarification. I am happy with the specification you provided in the parent. Best of luck with your efforts!
I thought similarly once. Observations of many such conversations changed my mind. Fortunately Reddit exists. There are plenty of other places to take the mind killing where it would be far more relevant and suitable.