Personally I read this as a straightforward accusation of dishonestyâsomething I would expect moderators to object to if the comment was critical (rather than supportive) of EA orthodoxy.
As a moderator, I wouldnât object to this comment no matter who made it. I see it as a criticism of someoneâs work, not an accusation that the person was dishonest.
If someone wrote a paper critiquing the differential technology paradigm and spoke to lots of reviewers about it â including many who were known to be pro-DT â but didnât cite any pro-DT arguments, it would be fine for someone to ask: âDid you really not hear any cases for the DT paradigm?â
The question doesnât have to mean âyou deliberately acted like there were no good pro-DT arguments and hoped we would believe youâ. That would frankly be a silly thing to say, since Carla and Luke are obviously familiar with these arguments and know that many of their readers would also be familiar with these arguments.
It could also imply:
âYou didnât ask the kinds of questions of reviewers that would lead them to spell out their cases for DTâ
âYou didnât make room in your paper to discuss the pro-DT arguments you heard, and I think you should haveâ
Or, more straightforwardly, you could avoid assuming any particular implication and just read the question as a question: âWhy were there no pro-DT arguments in your piece?â
I personally read implication (1), because of the statement â...made it seem like you did not do your researchâ.
Carlaâs response read to me as a response to implication (2): âWe chose not to discuss pro-DT arguments, because trying to give that kind of space to counterarguments for all of our points would be beyond the scope of our paper.â Which is a fine, reasonable response.
I think Rubiâs comment should have been more clear; itâs more important for questioners to ask good questions than for respondents to correctly guess at what the questioner meant.
Overall, as a moderator, my response to this part of Rubiâs comment is âthis is unclear and could mean many things â perhaps one of these things is uncivil, but Carla answered a civil version of the question, and Iâm not going to deliberately choose to interpret the question as the most uncivil version of itself.â
*****
On the level of meta-moderation, these are the things I personally look for*, in rough priority order (other mods may differ):
Comments that clearly insult another user
Comments that include an information hazard or advocate for seriously harmful action
Comments that interfere with good discourse in other ways
If you say âRubiâs comment is unclear, which means itâs in category (3)â â youâd be right, but there are a lot of comments that are unclear, and it isnât realistic for moderators to respond to more than a tiny fraction of them, which means I focus on comments in the first two categories.
If you say âRubiâs comment could be taken to imply an insult, which means itâs in category (1)â â I disagree, because I donât see any insulting read as âclearâ, and there are plenty of other ways to interpret the comment.
And of course, the specific position someone takes in a debate has no bearing on how we moderate, unless a particular position is in category (2) (âwe should release a plague to kill everyoneâ).
*I should also mention that Iâm a human with limited human attention. So Iâm not going to see every comment on every post. Thatâs why every post comes with a âreportâ option, which people should really use if they think a comment should be moderated:
If you report a post or comment, one or more mods will definitely look at it and at least consider your argument for why it was reportable.
Something not being moderated doesnât imply that itâs definitely fine â it could also mean the mods havenât read it, or that the mods didnât read it with âmoderator visionâ on. There have been times I read a comment in my off time, then saw the same comment reported later and said âoh, huh, this probably should be moderatedâ.
As a moderator, I wouldnât object to this comment no matter who made it. I see it as a criticism of someoneâs work, not an accusation that the person was dishonest.
If someone wrote a paper critiquing the differential technology paradigm and spoke to lots of reviewers about it â including many who were known to be pro-DT â but didnât cite any pro-DT arguments, it would be fine for someone to ask: âDid you really not hear any cases for the DT paradigm?â
The question doesnât have to mean âyou deliberately acted like there were no good pro-DT arguments and hoped we would believe youâ. That would frankly be a silly thing to say, since Carla and Luke are obviously familiar with these arguments and know that many of their readers would also be familiar with these arguments.
It could also imply:
âYou didnât ask the kinds of questions of reviewers that would lead them to spell out their cases for DTâ
âYou didnât make room in your paper to discuss the pro-DT arguments you heard, and I think you should haveâ
Or, more straightforwardly, you could avoid assuming any particular implication and just read the question as a question: âWhy were there no pro-DT arguments in your piece?â
I personally read implication (1), because of the statement â...made it seem like you did not do your researchâ.
Carlaâs response read to me as a response to implication (2): âWe chose not to discuss pro-DT arguments, because trying to give that kind of space to counterarguments for all of our points would be beyond the scope of our paper.â Which is a fine, reasonable response.
I think Rubiâs comment should have been more clear; itâs more important for questioners to ask good questions than for respondents to correctly guess at what the questioner meant.
Overall, as a moderator, my response to this part of Rubiâs comment is âthis is unclear and could mean many things â perhaps one of these things is uncivil, but Carla answered a civil version of the question, and Iâm not going to deliberately choose to interpret the question as the most uncivil version of itself.â
*****
On the level of meta-moderation, these are the things I personally look for*, in rough priority order (other mods may differ):
Comments that clearly insult another user
Comments that include an information hazard or advocate for seriously harmful action
Comments that interfere with good discourse in other ways
If you say âRubiâs comment is unclear, which means itâs in category (3)â â youâd be right, but there are a lot of comments that are unclear, and it isnât realistic for moderators to respond to more than a tiny fraction of them, which means I focus on comments in the first two categories.
If you say âRubiâs comment could be taken to imply an insult, which means itâs in category (1)â â I disagree, because I donât see any insulting read as âclearâ, and there are plenty of other ways to interpret the comment.
And of course, the specific position someone takes in a debate has no bearing on how we moderate, unless a particular position is in category (2) (âwe should release a plague to kill everyoneâ).
*I should also mention that Iâm a human with limited human attention. So Iâm not going to see every comment on every post. Thatâs why every post comes with a âreportâ option, which people should really use if they think a comment should be moderated:
If you report a post or comment, one or more mods will definitely look at it and at least consider your argument for why it was reportable.
Something not being moderated doesnât imply that itâs definitely fine â it could also mean the mods havenât read it, or that the mods didnât read it with âmoderator visionâ on. There have been times I read a comment in my off time, then saw the same comment reported later and said âoh, huh, this probably should be moderatedâ.
Honestly, fair enough.