Public Pastes
Pastebin PRO Accounts AUTUMN SPECIAL! For a limited time only get 40% discount on a LIFETIME PRO account! Offer Ends Soon!
SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

a guest Mar 23rd, 2012 115 Never
  1. (01:57:12 AM) Burninate_ left the room.
  2. (01:57:55 AM) rsaarelm: katydee: This? http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools
  3. (01:57:56 AM) Peacebringer: < Yudkowsky - Three Major Schools >
  4. (01:58:23 AM) katydee: Yeah, that one. Thanks
  5. (01:59:25 AM) SDr: who is Peacebringer's puppet master?
  6. (01:59:29 AM) ***rsaarelm finally looks at the new rules page and finds himself listed at the cabal.
  7. (01:59:53 AM) Konkvistador: rsaarelm: You are part of a cabal?
  8. (01:59:56 AM) Konkvistador: Neat can I join?
  9. (02:00:09 AM) rsaarelm: Konkvistador: No idea, nobody told me about it.
  10. (02:00:18 AM) Konkvistador: If you check my CV I'm God-Emperor-Pope-Director of the cult of the church of Rationolology.
  11. (02:00:24 AM) Konkvistador: That has to count for something.
  12. (02:00:33 AM) Konkvistador: So what are you guys talking about on this fine day?
  13. (02:01:42 AM) katydee: I think the last unresolved question
  14. (02:01:55 AM) katydee: Was whether Mike Darwin is a crank
  15. (02:02:03 AM) katydee: And why this channel links his articles
  16. (02:02:49 AM) rsaarelm: I did expect more from membership of the great #lesswrong cabal than having to open the rules link at the topic and finding your name listed at the "these folk are the great #lesswrong cabal".
  17. (02:03:24 AM) rsaarelm: Maybe I'm just being set up to take the fall as the clueless public face once the inner circle goes ahead with immanentizing the eschaton.
  18. (02:04:56 AM) rsaarelm: Also Darwin. Does he have other cranky stuff than the "western civilization is about to fall" sidetrack he's on sometimes?
  19. (02:05:44 AM) rsaarelm: He mostly strikes me as an interesting essayist and an example of someone who has been dedicated to a rationalist counterculture for decades.
  20. (02:06:04 AM) rsaarelm: So that's why I like his articles.
  21. (02:06:12 AM) katydee: I dunno, even his normal cryonics articles ping my crank detector
  22. (02:06:46 AM) Konkvistador: "caplan's philosophy can be summed up: bubble for me, but not for thee. because that's exactly what it is, in practice."
  23. (02:07:43 AM) Konkvistador: katydee: Some people just have something in their style of writing completely independent of content that works as a big neon sign saying "crank".
  24. (02:08:07 AM) katydee: signing your name to blog posts, for instance
  25. (02:08:18 AM) katydee: as part of the actual post text
  26. (02:09:04 AM) katydee: his weird posts about his parents hating him
  27. (02:10:24 AM) katydee: also he has very grandiose and odd ideas
  28. (02:10:28 AM) katydee: even in the context of cryonics
  29. (02:10:40 AM) katydee: "We have a profound responsibility to arrive at a world view, a morality and code of conduct of for cryonics. "
  30. (02:11:33 AM) katydee: the whole "insurgency" theme
  31. (02:11:39 AM) katydee: though that is likely just buzzwords
  32. (02:13:08 AM) katydee: when you combine all those sorts of signs with the whole "doomsday prepper" bit
  33. (02:14:04 AM) katydee: it doesn't end up looking too good
  34. (02:23:44 AM) Konkvistador: http://lesswrong.com/lw/b42/open_question_on_the_certain_hot_global_issue_of/
  35. (02:23:46 AM) Peacebringer: < Open question on the certain 'hot' global issue of importance to FAI - Less Wrong >
  36. (02:24:12 AM) Konkvistador: I so want to comment on this, yet I can't since I've committed to not post stuff until April 9th
  37. (02:24:33 AM) Konkvistador: 1. Global warming is not in itself an existential risk
  38. (02:24:52 AM) Konkvistador: 2. Even if it is one needs to factor in the costs associated with "fighting" it
  39. (02:24:58 AM) Konkvistador: 3. Global warming talk is political
  40. (02:25:17 AM) Konkvistador: 4. A non-trivial fraction of LessWrongers are metacontrarian on global warming
  41. (02:26:54 AM) Konkvistador: Global warming just seems such a silly thing to spend your efforts on compared to more urgent problems.
  42. (02:28:29 AM) mstevens: Konkvistador: why have you committed not to post until April 9th?
  43. (02:28:50 AM) Konkvistador: As part of my blog diet. I even made a post asking to be down voted if I do.
  44. (02:29:14 AM) katydee: Global warming has an issue
  45. (02:29:41 AM) katydee: Where most of the deaths will be in areas that many would consider largely irrelevant to the Singularity
  46. (02:31:05 AM) Konkvistador: Global warming will also save lives.
  47. (02:31:22 AM) Konkvistador: Do not underestimate the political and social opportunity costs of fighting global warming.
  48. (02:31:34 AM) Konkvistador: I see fighting global warming as a warm fuzzies cause.
  49. (02:32:46 AM) Konkvistador: The costs are there and are higher than expected because coordination problems like that are hard to solve.
  50. (02:35:32 AM) katydee: I wouldn't say it's a warm fuzzies cause per se
  51. (02:35:49 AM) katydee: But I do think that the costs are incommensurate with anything an individual can really be expected to do
  52. (02:36:09 AM) katydee: aside from geoengineering efforts, which are not that expensive but for obvious reasons should not be undertaken unless strictly necessary
  53. (02:37:20 AM) katydee: The marginal impact of AI donations is absolutely certainly far higher than the marginal impact of GW donations
  54. (02:38:27 AM) Konkvistador: katydee: I think it is a marginally warm fuzzies case.
  55. (02:38:52 AM) Konkvistador: I mean in a world where no one cared about global warming and you think you have a realistic chance of convincing enough people to care to do something about it, sure go for it.
  56. (02:39:17 AM) katydee: Fair point
  57. (02:39:19 AM) Konkvistador: But there are *plenty* of people working on that, people who you can't really convert to optimal philanthropy, why not let them do what they do.
  58. (02:40:09 AM) Konkvistador: And to be honest I'm not sure the millions spent on making people care about global warming and do something about it are enough to actually do something real about it.
  59. (02:41:39 AM) Konkvistador: Yeah I guess we basically agree on this. Isn't surprising. Didn't EY say something like if you read the sequences and decide your best chance at fighting existential risk is to make art that raises awareness about global warming you haven't really understood the threat of uFAI.
  60. (02:42:34 AM) katydee: I'm not sure. I remember him saying that it would be sad if you ended up dedicating your life to fighting global warming
  61. (02:42:58 AM) katydee: And then when people asked you what you did during the big run-up to the singularity
  62. (02:43:27 AM) katydee: people would have to ask "what's global warming"
  63. (02:43:36 AM) katydee: in order to understand what you were saying
  64. (02:43:44 AM) Konkvistador: "So having seen that intergalactic civilization depends on us, in one sense, all you can really do is try not to think about that, and in another sense though, if you spend your whole life creating art to inspire people to fight global warming, you’re taking that ‘forgetting about intergalactic civilization’ thing much too far."
  65. (02:43:46 AM) Konkvistador: Here it is.
  66. (02:43:58 AM) SubStack: iesn't EY relatively pessimistic about the timeframe though?
  67. (02:44:06 AM) Konkvistador: I think he is.
  68. (02:44:14 AM) Konkvistador: 30~ years or something.
  69. (02:44:20 AM) SubStack: that's wildly optimistic
  70. (02:44:29 AM) Konkvistador: 10 or 20?
  71. (02:44:29 AM) SubStack: I was thinking a few hundered years
  72. (02:44:47 AM) Konkvistador: AI coming sooner is pessimistic SubStack
  73. (02:45:11 AM) Konkvistador: If someone makes AGI tomorrow we have no real idea how to make it friendly.
  74. (02:45:21 AM) Konkvistador: If he makes it next year, we aren't much better.
  75. (02:45:33 AM) Konkvistador: In 2020 we might be marginally better off.
  76. (02:46:11 AM) Konkvistador: I can't see FAI research taking less than a few decades before we have implementable results that give us a decent shot.
  77. (02:46:14 AM) SubStack: building an AGI would seem to entail knowing a lot about how motivation and goal states work
  78. (02:46:47 AM) katydee: yeah, keep in mind that in EY's view AI coming soon is not so much "here comes the cyber-rapture" or even just "here comes the big change" but rather "here is the cliff civilization is hurtling towards"
  79. (02:47:08 AM) SubStack: also there's the problem of estimating attaining knowledge that we don't know yet
  80. (02:48:17 AM) katydee: there's also a post somewhere about how EURISKO could have been AGI
  81. (02:48:19 AM) katydee: and
  82. (02:48:42 AM) katydee: since we have no idea how close we are to either, and AGI is almost certainly easier than FAI
  83. (02:48:45 AM) Peacebringer: New post: https://meteuphoric.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/are-we-infantile-introspectors/
  84. (02:49:20 AM) katydee: the correct pace for FAI is "faster faster oh god oh god"
  85. (02:49:28 AM) katydee: as long as things still end up provably good, that is :P
  86. (02:49:28 AM) SubStack: also I'm skeptical of the assumptions underlying "intelligence" as a scalar quantity used in arguments about how UFAIs will be able to trick us into doing their bidding
  87. (02:53:13 AM) jv___: anyone alive in here?
  88. (02:53:38 AM) Konkvistador: "the correct pace for FAI is "faster faster oh god oh god" +1
  89. (02:54:01 AM) jv___ left the room (quit: Client Quit).
  90. (02:54:01 AM) SubStack: if anything, getting stupider people to do things is harder, extrapolating from my own experiences
  91. (02:54:33 AM) Konkvistador: SubStack: UFAI dosen't need you to do anything. All it needs are your atoms.
  92. (02:54:45 AM) SubStack: a UFAI would have to think really hard to dumb itself down into making itself comprehensible to us simpletons
  93. (02:54:59 AM) SubStack: all that inferential distance
  94. (02:55:19 AM) Konkvistador: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/b46/new_irc_channels/
  95. (02:55:34 AM) Konkvistador: Is this a coup?
  96. (02:55:46 AM) Konkvistador: "#lesswrong on Freenode, which used to be the official unofficial LessWrong channel, has been re-designated as a private hangout reserved for, roughly, ggreer/AngryParsley, efm, realitygrill, rsaarelm, ksotala, gwern, Grognor, chelz, cwillu, Boxo, nshepperd, ivan, mstevens, and jandrog. You're still welcome to speak there, but only if whatever you're saying is interesting/important to one of...
  97. (02:55:48 AM) Konkvistador: ...them and the op."
  98. (02:55:50 AM) Konkvistador: Makes you guys sound evil.
  99. (02:56:05 AM) ***Konkvistador is sore about not being part of the cabal.
  100. (02:56:06 AM) SubStack: especially since our own conceptual models of other people seem to run our own mental models forward for a few different situational variables
  101. (02:56:37 AM) mstevens: Konkvistador: cool, this is a very easy coup, nobody even told me I was in charge
  102. (02:56:46 AM) SubStack: an AGI built that way and sufficiently smarter would need to consciously dumb itself down to perform that kind of simulation
  103. (02:57:29 AM) katydee: Konkvistador, Papermachine banned that guy for getting mad after Papermachine kicked him for spamming with no warning
  104. (02:57:39 AM) katydee: Papermachine replied "why do you think" when the guy asked why he got kicked
  105. (02:57:46 AM) katydee: and the guy started throwing out insults
  106. (02:58:03 AM) Konkvistador: Yeah I was trying to hint that we now have a buthurt poster starting a thread that lost of people who never heard of the IRC channel will see.
  107. (02:58:25 AM) katydee: yeah
  108. (02:58:36 AM) Konkvistador: But seriously someone should just set the guy straight in a comment. Though that might prolong the drama
  109. (02:58:42 AM) katydee: I don't really "get" the IRC channel. Is it official? Who runs it?
  110. (03:00:44 AM) katydee: I like that it's here, but more transparency would be nice.
  111. (03:00:46 AM) SDr: katydee, kinda, and whoever controls Peacebringer, mostly via bans / kicks
  112. (03:00:53 AM) katydee: Especially when it leads to problems like this one
  113. (03:01:27 AM) SDr: katydee, which has a relatively high false positive rate, to the extent where even gwern has been kicked at least once
  114. (03:01:55 AM) katydee: yeah, that's the thing I don't get
  115. (03:05:24 AM) clone_of_saturn: it's more than one person
  116. (03:05:44 AM) ksotala: Well, I left a comment.
  117. (03:06:18 AM) clone_of_saturn: most of whom don't seem very clueful regarding successfully moderating an irc channel
  118. (03:06:56 AM) ksotala: In general, my experience has been that it's very rare for IRC channels for actually *need* much moderation...
  119. (03:07:09 AM) ksotala: You'll want to kick off the occasional spammer, and that's mostly it
  120. (03:07:16 AM) ksotala: *to actually
  121. (03:08:21 AM) ksotala: Though I suppose that the "lying about MoR updates is bannable" rule is silly enough to be okay ;)
  122. (03:08:26 AM) Jachy: More rule drama, what is this.
  123. (03:08:38 AM) ksotala: Drama is what makes the Internets go on
  124. (03:08:55 AM) SDr: to be a bit more constructive: I've anticipated this problem, and prepared an attack from a different angle
  125. (03:08:59 AM) SDr: observe: http://178.79.140.211/
  126. (03:09:00 AM) Peacebringer: < IRC monitor >
  127. (03:09:32 AM) ksotala: I support this solution :D
  128. (03:09:34 AM) SDr: realtime feedback, and karma whoring per IRC message, based on whether the comment was constructive or not
  129. (03:10:09 AM) ksotala: Is it implemented yet or is that just a mock-up? I upvoted my own message but can't see any difference
  130. (03:10:30 AM) Boxo: damn, that's awesome
  131. (03:11:00 AM) SDr: ksotala, it's a mock-up, that I've been using with my own incantations, and which can be made production-ready on short notice, if need arises
  132. (03:12:14 AM) jayson_virissimo: looks good to me
  133. (03:13:57 AM) Jachy: I guess I'm one of the few who short-circuited the rules page as just a giant reminder full of bad jokes to not suck at IRC.
  134. (03:14:12 AM) ksotala: Of course it's probably useless for real-world use (IRC discussion happens too fast for karma voting to really be a very effective feedback mechanism, etc.), but the concept is awesome in that geeky "WTF a dude created a million square feet mock-up of the Death Star in Minecraft" way. :)
  135. (03:14:42 AM) ksotala: But I should go get some food now ->
  136. (03:14:49 AM) Jachy: Playing with a bot while polluting other people's chatlogs is definitely a way to suck at IRC.
  137. (03:14:59 AM) jayson_virissimo: naw, Jachy it wouldn't say anything about MoR if it wasn't a joke
  138. (03:16:09 AM) Jachy: The MoR rule isn't a joke, it's just a reminder not to suck at IRC by deceiving others into wasting time and raising emotions for inevitable disappointment moments later.
  139. (03:17:26 AM) clone_of_saturn: a sensible channel operator would've just said "hey logos01, you've been talking about how you'd conquer rome for the past 7 hours, maybe give it a rest" but nooooo
  140. (03:17:43 AM) Konkvistador: (It's worth noting that the "moral wrongdoing is like infectious disease" metaphor is a surprisingly deep aspect of human social psychology, even to the extent that hand-washing affects levels of risk aversion. The pervasiveness of the metaphor is especially clear in the Christians' emphasis on baptism, holy water, purgatorial fires, et cetera. I take about five baths a day, and I suspect it...
  141. (03:17:45 AM) Konkvistador: ...has at least a little to do with constantly feeling guilty. Understanding the basis of this connection might helps us manipulate it: "quietly going along with something even if you don't actually agree with it is dirty".)
  142. (03:17:46 AM) Konkvistador: Uhm.
  143. (03:17:59 AM) Jachy: Also it's pretty dumb to have a channel op when said channel op isn't opping around the clock.
  144. (03:18:02 AM) Konkvistador: Why are so many Will Newsome posts in parenthesis?
  145. (03:19:02 AM) Jachy: The "wake up, kick someone, go back to sleep for several hours, wake up, kick someone, ..." style of opping that whoever uses Peacebringer performs is awful.
  146. (03:21:49 AM) Jachy: Gardens die by pacifism, they also die by half-assed attempts at management like watering crops with gatorade.
  147. (03:23:54 AM) Konkvistador left the room (quit: Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.88.1 [Firefox 11.0/20120312181643]).
  148. (03:32:10 AM) TCB: ...where did the rules come from?
  149. (03:32:49 AM) Konkvistador: God?
  150. (03:33:18 AM) mstevens: the peacebringer entity?
  151. (03:34:14 AM) TCB: What I mean to ask is, was there a long process through which it was decided that the channel needed rules, and then the rules were implemented collectively by the regulars?  Or did the rules just... happen?
  152. (03:35:26 AM) mstevens: the second thing
  153. (03:36:06 AM) clone_of_saturn: someone asked for opinions about more intensive moderation to "prevent uninteresting discussions" or something like that
  154. (03:36:24 AM) mstevens: clone_of_saturn: I missed that part
  155. (03:36:57 AM) clone_of_saturn: all but one person basically said it's fine the way it is
  156. (03:37:14 AM) TCB: As an erstwhile regular (assuming I was ever a regular), I strongly disagree that the channel ought to have rules, and would have appreciated being able to voice my disagreement before they were made official.
  157. (03:37:20 AM) Peacebringer: "The regulars" had nothing to do with it. One of my operators composed the new rules and the regulars list to try and halt the decline of the qualiy of discussion on #lw.
  158. (03:38:08 AM) TCB: I've been away for a while so I honestly don't know - is there a consensus that discussion quality has declined?
  159. (03:38:34 AM) SDr: TCB, apart from grognor, no, and he's getting better.
  160. (03:39:15 AM) TCB: So what I'm hearing is that none of the people currently present felt very strongly that there ought to be rules?
  161. (03:39:39 AM) TCB: except Peacebringer, I mean.
  162. (03:39:50 AM) clone_of_saturn: iirc, shokwave was the only one who liked the idea
  163. (03:40:09 AM) ***TCB sighs
  164. (03:41:22 AM) TCB: I take it this means that the rules won't be enforced very strictly?  However, I'm still concerned that they're offputting to newbies, who may very well have something worthwhile to contribute.  I am always sad to see online communities stagnate by not accepting new members.
  165. (03:42:05 AM) TCB: Or by not allowing new discussion topics, or by giving an impression that any deviation from a few narrow discussion topics is undesirable.
  166. (03:42:21 AM) SDr: TCB, we have anticipated drama, and are preparing viable next-best-alternatives.
  167. (03:42:37 AM) ***TCB is not intending to cause drama; sorry!
  168. (03:42:44 AM) SDr: "the situation is evolving rapidly" as they say. grab a popcorn :)
  169. (03:43:17 AM) TCB: Having voiced my objections publicly, I am now content to wait as the situation unfolds.  =)
  170. (03:43:38 AM) ***TCB is sorry if you've been getting people coming in here all night doing this.
  171. (03:43:55 AM) SDr: discussion on the topic is encouraged, though :)
  172. (03:44:16 AM) SDr: I mean, if we can agree on a set of rules that might proove to be more... enforcably dynamic, that's also cool
  173. (03:46:09 AM) TCB: Hmm.  On one hand, I dislike explicit rules, for a few reasons.  For one, I've found that communities will develop implicit social norms automatically, so there's no real need for explicit rules unless outside trolls are invading.
  174. (03:47:30 AM) TCB: For another, when the rules exist, they make a statement about the community: namely, that this is the sort of community that would constrain its behavior with rules.  This isn't a surprising characteristic of the rationalist community, considering that we are drawn together by a mutual tendency to formalize and axiomatize things.
  175. (03:47:48 AM) SDr: TCB, I've been rotating around the timezones for 4 months in this channel now. implicit social norms suffer a severe dissonance based on people availability
  176. (03:48:14 AM) Peacebringer: My operators are open to other possible means to the end.
  177. (03:48:38 AM) TCB: I've been gone for months, so I can't comment on the social norms of the community, and only hope that someone will be kind enough to inform me if I'm violating them terribly.  =)
  178. (03:49:29 AM) TCB: But SDr: this suggests that there are multiple communities existing in this channel, which would make a single formalized set of rules even less appropriate!
  179. (03:49:58 AM) Peacebringer: This operator agrees with most of what TCB just said.
  180. (03:51:22 AM) SDr: Peacebringer, the UFAI with a built-in cognitive dissonance generator
  181. (03:51:26 AM) SDr: :D
  182. (03:51:40 AM) ksotala: I'd prefer the "just give ops to everyone who's been around for a while and isn't clearly clueless" policy with regard to opping
  183. (03:51:53 AM) ksotala: That's the policy on most of the channels that I'm on, and seems to work fine
  184. (03:54:12 AM) TCB: ksotala: That makes sense, but it seems kind of binary: either you're acting reasonably and are allowed to continue, or you're kicked out/muted/however it works.  Do you think that moderators would warn people in advance that their behavior was not appropriate for the community?  I ask this out of empathy for people who are bad at picking up on social norms.  =)
  185. (03:54:25 AM) clone_of_saturn: i think there would be less drama and general rebelliousness if the distinction between people whose opinion matters and whose don't was more informal and context-based, and more warnings were given before kicking starts
  186. (03:54:31 AM) ***TCB is playing devil's advocate and is totally find with ksotala's idea.
  187. (03:54:38 AM) Peacebringer: the problem is that most people are too squeamish to break out the banhammer in the situation described in the first three paragraphs of Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
  188. (03:54:57 AM) ksotala: TCB: In my experience, pretty much the only explicit moderation that a channel need is kicking out spammers
  189. (03:55:43 AM) ksotala: TCB: But in the case that someone does need to be disciplined, yes, there should definitely be a warning or two first
  190. (03:56:37 AM) TCB: ksotala: So the goal is to avoid spam?  I get the impression that some people are advocating a sort of conversation-eugenics and that's the only thing I'm opposed to.
  191. (03:57:32 AM) rsaarelm: The channel did have that troll who kept changing his nick since people were putting the old ones on ignore some time back.
  192. (04:00:41 AM) Peacebringer: The goal is not just to avoid spam. The goal is to have a fun and interesting channel.
  193. (04:00:51 AM) TCB left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 245 seconds).
  194. (04:01:56 AM) ksotala: The rules make the channel less fun :P
  195. (04:03:15 AM) rsaarelm: I'm kinda confused by rule 1. "Newbies can talk, except to other newbies". I can guess at the intent, but how's a newbie going to be able to follow that?
  196. (04:04:06 AM) clone_of_saturn: i take it it's a sink or swim kind of thing
  197. (04:05:04 AM) rsaarelm: Don't see it as such.
  198. (04:05:09 AM) rsaarelm: "Please be clueful" would be that.
  199. (04:05:37 AM) rsaarelm: But a newbie won't know who of the other members are newbies, so a rule like that as #1 is pretty confusing.
  200. (04:05:57 AM) TCB [809743ec@gateway/web/freenode/ip.128.151.67.236] entered the room.
  201. (04:06:05 AM) ksotala: TCB: Yeah, the conversation eugenics just seems unnecessary for the most part. Yes, there are cases when it *is* justified, in case people are clearly below community norms, but I haven't really seen much of that here.
  202. (04:06:27 AM) rsaarelm: I think the idea is that whoever wrote the rules wants to avoid the decay pattern where several clueless people start up self-perpetuating conversations, but that's not really a thing you can guideline against that easily.
  203. (04:06:41 AM) clone_of_saturn: ksotala: have you seen logos01 going on and on?
  204. (04:06:42 AM) TCB: Oops, I got disconnected!  Sorry everyone!  Is there a log so that I can see what was said in my absence?
  205. (04:07:28 AM) rsaarelm: I like the Metafilter approach to moderation, where there are mods, who are humans who are capable of social judgment and deliberation, and will step in, ask questions, and deal bans if the questions aren't resolved satisfactorily, but don't have that many explicit rules for the social conduct since it'd just lead to lawyering and extra noise from the people whose initial noise required moderators to step in.
  206. (04:08:32 AM) rsaarelm: The need for human and social judgment and deliberartion capable mods is of course the shortcoming of that system.
  207. (04:08:47 AM) Peacebringer: rsaarelm, yes, or the decay pattern where several clueless people just generate noise on their own
  208. (04:09:03 AM) TCB: rsaarelm: but such humans would be needed for enforcing the rules anyway, right?
  209. (04:09:37 AM) rsaarelm: Peacebringer: Yeah, but the people who can follow the instruction not to do that generally aren't the people who will end up doing that.
  210. (04:11:07 AM) TCB: It does seem reasonable to have a community policy of asking people to take lengthy, one-on-one discussions to private message or some other medium of communication.
  211. (04:11:25 AM) rsaarelm: TCB: Yeah, but they will need to put themselves on the line more than just dealing bans quoting chapter and verse of Official Rules of Conduct.
  212. (04:11:41 AM) clone_of_saturn: polite requests to stop tend to go over better than out-of-the-blue kicking
  213. (04:12:17 AM) rsaarelm: Then again, rules that keep newbies who might contribute to noise-over-signal confused about whether they are welcome to talk or not will make them contribute less noise-over-signal.
  214. (04:12:33 AM) TCB: rsaarelm: Yeah, that's my big concern.
  215. (04:12:36 AM) clone_of_saturn: there are relatively few people who won't listen to the former but will listen to the latter
  216. (04:13:04 AM) TCB: I mean, it's not even newbies.  Like, I looked at the discussion post and my first thought was "Wow, I guess I'm not welcome on the IRC channel anymore."
  217. (04:13:11 AM) TCB: er, it's not just newbies, rather.
  218. (04:13:41 AM) ***TCB agrees with everyone who is advocating polite requests.  =)
  219. (04:14:36 AM) TCB: Hmm, rereading the discussion post, it says a very different thing than the rules do.
  220. (04:15:16 AM) clone_of_saturn: that was posted by someone who ran afoul of the new rules and apparently got somewhat angry
  221. (04:15:30 AM) rsaarelm: And I just now read the rules closely enough to notice the bit where the consensus of the channel regulars is referred to as CEV, with footnote to the Singinst article.
  222. (04:16:01 AM) TCB: clone_of_saturn: ah, apparently I don't understand sarcasm on the internet then.  =)  I took the post seriously.  I feel silly now!
  223. (04:16:06 AM) TCB: thanks!
  224. (04:18:09 AM) TCB: Other than Rule 4, I have no objection to the rules, at least in spirit.  I still object to having community rules, but would actually kind of like the idea of having "community guidelines" as helpful suggestions to newbies who are learning to fit in to the community.
  225. (04:22:03 AM) ***TCB goes to read a book.  Bye everyone!
  226. (04:22:08 AM) TCB left the room (quit: Quit: Page closed).
  227. (04:30:09 AM) Mortomes|Work is now known as Mortomes|Lunch
  228. (04:34:28 AM) Jachy: Isn't there a #lw-100 for users with over 100 karma who want a "higher-quality IRC discussion" than the main channel? Or was that just a joke?
  229. (04:35:29 AM) rsaarelm: It was actually made, didn't have any significant discussion in it as far as I can tell.
  230. (04:35:58 AM) Jachy: Ah, so it's tyranny of the minority!
  231. (04:37:16 AM) rsaarelm: Online community management is kinda hard, and beyond the laissez-faire model it's hard to have moderators willing to put enough work into it to make things work.
  232. (04:37:51 AM) Jachy: True. Though IRC is still somewhat regarded as "a place for hackers" as opposed to a message board.
  233. (04:38:18 AM) Jachy: I think the worry that a bunch of MoR fans who are n00bs flooding the channel is misguided.
  234. (04:39:00 AM) mstevens: Jachy: I was that MoR fan! Although I'd seen EY occasionally online back to sl4 days
  235. (04:39:16 AM) Jachy: mstevens: that taints you so you don't count. ;P
  236. (04:50:50 AM) u__ is now known as u_
  237. (04:51:51 AM) mode (-b *!~Hikoboshi@unaffiliated/anubhav-c/x-2002868) by Peacebringer
RAW Paste Data
Top