We have a higher bar for taking moderation action against criticism, but considering that sapphire was warned two days ago we have decided to ban sapphire for one month for breaking forum norms multiple times.
I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with this decision.
Per my own values and style of communication, I think that welcoming people like sapphire or Sabs who a) are or can be intensely disagreeable, and b) have points worth sharing and processing, is strongly on the side of worth doing, even if c) they make other people uncomfortable, and d) even if they occasionally misfire, and even if they are wrong most of the time, as long as the expected value of the stuff they say remains high.
In particular, I think that doing so is good for arriving at correct beliefs and for becoming stronger, which I value a whole lot. It is the kind of communication which we use on my forecasting group, where the goal is to arrive at correct beliefs.
I understand that the EA Forum moderators may have different values, and that they may want to make the forum a less spiky place. Know that this has the predictable consequence of losing a Nuño, and it is part of the reason why Iâve bothered to create a blog and added comments to it in a way which I expect to be fairly uncensorable[1].
Separately, I do think it is the case that EA âsimpsâ for tech billionaires[2]. An answer I would have preferred to see would be a steelmanning of why that is good, or an argument of why this isnât the case.
Uncensorable by others: I am hosting the blog on top of nja.la and the comments on my own servers. Not uncensorable by me; I can and will censor stuff that I think is low value by my own utilitarian/âconsequentialist lights.
Iâm conflicted on this: on the one hand I agree that itâs worth listening to people who arenât skilled at politeness or arenât putting enough effort into it. On the other hand, I think someone like Sapphire is capable of communicating the same information in a more polite way, and a ban incentivizes people to put more effort into politeness, which will make the community nicer.
Yeah, you also see this with criticism, where for any given piece of criticism, you could put more effort into it and make it more effective. But having that as a standard (even as a personal one) means that it will happen less.
So I donât think we disagree on the fact that there is a demand curve? Maybe we disagree that I want to have more sapphires and less politeness, on the margin?
The mods canât realistically call different strike zones based on whether or not âexpected value of the stuff [a poster says] remains high.â Not only does that make them look non-impartial, it actually is non-impartial.
Plus, warnings and bans are the primary methods by which the mods give substance to the floor of what forum norms require. That educative function requires a fairly consistent floor. If a comment doesnât draw a warning, itâs at least a weak signal that the comment doesnât cross the line.
I do think a history of positive contributions is relevant to the sanction.
Can you say which norms the current comment breaks? I think it was not clear to me upon reading both the comment, and looking at the forum norms again.
The comment was unnecessarily rude and antagonistic â it didnât meet the minimum bar for civility. (See the Forum norm âStay civil, at the minimumâ.)
In isolation, this comment is a mild norm violation. But having a lot of mildly-bad (unnecessarily antagonistic) comments often corrodes the quality of Forum discourse more than a single terrible comment.
Itâs hard to know how to respond to someone who seems to have a pattern of posting such comments. Thereâs often no âsmoking gunâ comment that clearly deserves a ban. Thatâs why we have our current setup â we generally give warnings and then proceed to bans if nothing changes.
I think weâve not been responding to cases like this enough, recently. At the same time, I wish we could figure out a more collaborative approach than our current one, and itâs possible that a 1-month warning was too long â weâre discussing it in the moderation team.
(Note: some parts of this comment, as with some other comments that moderators post, were written by other moderators, but I personally believe what Iâm posting. This seems worth flagging, given that Iâm sharing these opinions as my own. I donât know if all the people on the moderation team agree with everything as I put it here.)
The meaning of âsimpâ differs from place to place, but itâs not particularly civil and decidedly not in this context. I support a suspension action in light of the recent warning, but given the dissimilar type of violation maybe a week or two would have been sufficient.
We have a higher bar for taking moderation action against criticism, but considering that sapphire was warned two days ago we have decided to ban sapphire for one month for breaking forum norms multiple times.
I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with this decision.
Per my own values and style of communication, I think that welcoming people like sapphire or Sabs who a) are or can be intensely disagreeable, and b) have points worth sharing and processing, is strongly on the side of worth doing, even if c) they make other people uncomfortable, and d) even if they occasionally misfire, and even if they are wrong most of the time, as long as the expected value of the stuff they say remains high.
In particular, I think that doing so is good for arriving at correct beliefs and for becoming stronger, which I value a whole lot. It is the kind of communication which we use on my forecasting group, where the goal is to arrive at correct beliefs.
I understand that the EA Forum moderators may have different values, and that they may want to make the forum a less spiky place. Know that this has the predictable consequence of losing a Nuño, and it is part of the reason why Iâve bothered to create a blog and added comments to it in a way which I expect to be fairly uncensorable[1].
Separately, I do think it is the case that EA âsimpsâ for tech billionaires[2]. An answer I would have preferred to see would be a steelmanning of why that is good, or an argument of why this isnât the case.
Uncensorable by others: I am hosting the blog on top of nja.la and the comments on my own servers. Not uncensorable by me; I can and will censor stuff that I think is low value by my own utilitarian/âconsequentialist lights.
Less sure of AI companies, but you could also make the case, e.g., 80kh does recommend positions at OpenAI (<https://ââjobs.80000hours.org/ââ?query=OpenAI>)
Iâm conflicted on this: on the one hand I agree that itâs worth listening to people who arenât skilled at politeness or arenât putting enough effort into it. On the other hand, I think someone like Sapphire is capable of communicating the same information in a more polite way, and a ban incentivizes people to put more effort into politeness, which will make the community nicer.
Yeah, you also see this with criticism, where for any given piece of criticism, you could put more effort into it and make it more effective. But having that as a standard (even as a personal one) means that it will happen less.
So I donât think we disagree on the fact that there is a demand curve? Maybe we disagree that I want to have more sapphires and less politeness, on the margin?
The mods canât realistically call different strike zones based on whether or not âexpected value of the stuff [a poster says] remains high.â Not only does that make them look non-impartial, it actually is non-impartial.
Plus, warnings and bans are the primary methods by which the mods give substance to the floor of what forum norms require. That educative function requires a fairly consistent floor. If a comment doesnât draw a warning, itâs at least a weak signal that the comment doesnât cross the line.
I do think a history of positive contributions is relevant to the sanction.
Can you say which norms the current comment breaks? I think it was not clear to me upon reading both the comment, and looking at the forum norms again.
Sorry for the late reply,
The comment was unnecessarily rude and antagonistic â it didnât meet the minimum bar for civility. (See the Forum norm âStay civil, at the minimumâ.)
In isolation, this comment is a mild norm violation. But having a lot of mildly-bad (unnecessarily antagonistic) comments often corrodes the quality of Forum discourse more than a single terrible comment.
Itâs hard to know how to respond to someone who seems to have a pattern of posting such comments. Thereâs often no âsmoking gunâ comment that clearly deserves a ban. Thatâs why we have our current setup â we generally give warnings and then proceed to bans if nothing changes.
I think weâve not been responding to cases like this enough, recently. At the same time, I wish we could figure out a more collaborative approach than our current one, and itâs possible that a 1-month warning was too long â weâre discussing it in the moderation team.
(Note: some parts of this comment, as with some other comments that moderators post, were written by other moderators, but I personally believe what Iâm posting. This seems worth flagging, given that Iâm sharing these opinions as my own. I donât know if all the people on the moderation team agree with everything as I put it here.)
The meaning of âsimpâ differs from place to place, but itâs not particularly civil and decidedly not in this context. I support a suspension action in light of the recent warning, but given the dissimilar type of violation maybe a week or two would have been sufficient.
https://ââwww.cnn.com/ââ2021/ââ02/ââ19/ââhealth/ââwhat-is-simp-teen-slang-wellness/ââindex.html