I can think of a few natural clusters that might not satisfy everyone's every preference, but I think come close to at least letting you know which kind of space you are in. I'd be willing to compromise on my own norms if there was a nearby enough cluster that gave me 80% or better of what I want. These are based loosely on what I perceive to be the clusters people have asked for or directly expressed in commenting guidelines here and elsewhere.
Suggested norm clusters:
Maybe there could be an "asshole" cluster opposite the third "nice" cluster, but I'm not sure that serves any serious purpose here on LW; people already have plenty of places to talk that way to each other and it seems anti-conducive to the general LW project, whereas the "nice" cluster could serve a purpose on some kinds of posts or for some kinds of authors that would not bring down the general quality of LW (it would just be neutral in terms of truth seeking, I think).
Just to add on to this, I ignore some of the other dimensions we could cluster around, like discussions that try to accomplish something in particular or not and feedback on writing style or not. In the case of accomplishing some project I think that's going to always be specific enough to the post to not be a regular norm and something that will have to be spelled out in the post because there's simply too many posts here that aren't about a project.
I generally find most people commenting on writing advice rude and in poor taste except in c...
So, I would still like to know "what cluster of norms do you actually prefer?" An important part of this question was "what is there actual demand for, and/or supply of?"
Yeah. One of my hopes with this thread is that basically, there would turn out to be two major types of spaces people wanted, the Debate cluster and the Collaborate cluster (I don't know what names are best for either of them).
There are some fine-tune issues where... well, for example, while I don't expect Eliezer to show up in the comments anytime soon, my model of Eliezer prefers "debate/combat norms, but with people he respects". But that sort of thing might be easily solvable with "who is allowed to comment" being a different axis than "what are the norms and rules if you are commenting?"
I think I don't have any strong object-level preferences along these lines, and if norm clusters develop, will probably end up copying/adopting whatever norm cluster that seems to produce the most vibrant, highest quality discussions.
One thing I would really like though, is a chance to experiment with this idea to see what effects it has on discussions (hopefully positive ones), and would definitely enable it for myself if it was an option that authors could choose for their comment sections.
I would post much more on lesswrong if there was a 'no nitpicking' norm available.
(re-posted as a top level comment at Ray's request)
Answering for myself on my own posts:
I ideally want ~one set of norms, even if it doesn't agree with my preferences on all points. The cost of illegibility and decentralization is not in my view worth the benefit of being able to fiddle with everything.
I do think it's possible for one set of norms to basically include all the stuff you mentioned as different knobs, though.
Hmm – can you talk more about what it'd mean to have one set of rules and norms with lots of knobs? (Like, how is that distinguished from having multiple sets of knobs? Are you saying that you expect clarity over the knobs to reduce the confusion to the point that we can all agree that there's just one set of meta-rules? That seems plausible but it'd be helpful for you to spell out more detail of what that looks like)
I generally prefer norms that look like sparring - anything that's relevant is fair game, anything on the boundary of personal attack is fair game so long as you can make the case for its relevance.
Personal preferences aside, the biggest norm problem I've encountered is when people make an assertion based on priors that are taboo to discuss but you can't make a solid counterargument without addressing them.
I'm not sure I'd place the emphasis on authors as strongly as you did. In terms of words written, hours spent, and intellectual progress generated, commenters might be equal to post authors. Further, it's frequent commenters who pay the high cost of there behind being multiple norm sets.
I think it might be valuable to ask a separate question about commenter preferences. But this question is mostly oriented around "if LessWrong leaned hard into the archipelago model, what would that look like?" which is a separate question from "Is the archipelago model good?", and it comes with some background assumptions, which include:
There is a skillset, separate from authorship, which is "willingness to cultivate* and/or enforce* norms". One of the problems with my initial conception of archipelago-on-LW was that it required those two skillsets be found in the same person (but, actually, they are quite distinct).
So it may be particularly valuable to ask "of people who would be interested in running a subreddit and enforcing/cultivating norms there, what clusters of norms would they be interested in cultivating?". But I still think the value of this question is downstream of "which authors would actually want to post in that subreddit?"
But I'd guess/hope that this is addressed by the "you count as an 'author' for this question if you'd be motivated to actively create spaces with particular normsets."
*there's two fairly different conceptions of norms, one of which is where they're something you enforce, another is they're something you cultivate. Enforcement looks more like saying "hey, you're violating the norm, please don't" (which is backed up by force). Cultivation looks more like just being a "good participant" who helps steer conversations in useful ways.
In many ways I think cultivation is better, except that it's much more costly in terms of time, and sometimes emotional energy.
For compeleteness, not sure if I endorse it: another conception of norms is that they're something you discover. They're an emergent feature of very complex social expectations, and even the attempt to formalize them causes ripple effects that can make the norms less effective. There are certainly ways to influence norms, both to filter for participants more amenable to norms you prefer, and to nudge those participants toward behaviors that reinforce those norms, but they remain fundamentally illegible and chaotic.
I guess that's "lightweight cultivation", more 'tending' than 'planning'.
Do you model different threads on reddit as each thread having their own norm, which can't be entirely codified/put into words?
Please distinguish between "norms", which are generally at least somewhat illegible and enforced informally at multiple levels, from "rules", which are expressed more clearly and judged/enforced by a coordinated entity. Moderation is about rules. Voting, reacts, and comments are controlled by norms.
The site owners, mods, and authors have pretty good control over rules, and can perhaps design nudges toward norms. The readers and commenters are the ones who'll actually determine the norms (and, in turn, be influenced by each other's ideas of the norms).
As more a reader/commenter than an author, I'm unlikely to pay much conscious attention to more than 2 or 3 variants of the guidelines. Possibly a few more if there is a strong separation between the islands (visually distinct, different post/comment/curation lists), so my brain is in a different context for each of them.
[edit: This probably should be a comment, not an answer. Is there any way for me to change it? ]
I agree with this distinction. Will try to keep it in mind in the future and possibly rewrite the post when I have time to clarify.
[meta: I think you should be able to move comments back and forth between answers and comments by using the triple-dot menu in the top-right. It might not be there if you're using GreaterWrong]
More complicated alternatives:
(Borrowed ideas from current answers marked with [1], inspiration marked with [2], clarifying something I wrote marked with [3])
1) norms consisting of simple defined pieces, of which all or some combinations of pieces exist as "norms/normsets".
Example pieces:
Ways to disagree: A) Saying "This is obviously wrong." B) Asking "what am I missing?"
Spelling[1]: A) If I spelled something wrong, tell me. B) Say nothing. C) Only let me know if it really sticks out like a sore thumb and it's not clear what I mean. D) Editing commentary takes place in an comment which just says "Errata" which D1) Only the author can make, D2) Anyone can make.
2) Comment sections come in different flavors, or sections. The author might "host"/moderate one of these, and maybe people who are interested in participating in other sections have a way of indicating it, and if there's enough interest A) some people (number of mods based on number of people interested) who are interested in participating instead serve as moderators. B) People who are allowed to moderate (or are allowed to moderate a given norm set) can indicate their willingness to moderate a (currently) un-hosted, or insufficiently hosted, section of a post.
This one sounds complicated, and like it could go different ways itself - the OP's idea for this sounds better (in that it's simpler):
with the caveat that I think it's a fine outcome for an author to write a post with one set of comment-norms, and someone who prefers other norms to write up a post titled "Discussing Bob's Post X" that sets different norms).
Writing this made me ask "who is going to moderate normsets[3], who/how will they be chosen, and how are normsets made/who makes them?" (It also made me feel like an an economist writing about anarcho-capitalism.)
3) Outright Groups/Channels/Threads[2]. A Group is a set of people, and a set of rules for entering (invite only, anyone can enter, or "all may read, only members may comment")
A) Groups choose a normset (and moderators?)
B) Groups come up with their own normset (and possibly the moderation - if no one (who can moderate) wants to moderate a "asshole* group", then they either cough up moderation, or do without)
How exactly a group comes into being isn't clear, or how they relate to each other. Everyone on the site could be in a giant group to start with, which has the option of organizing into schisms, with the possibility of the original group sticking around and operating by compromise rules.
4) People choose a normset. (Or multiple normsets.)
A) Each normset has an associated color. When you choose that normset, your name, and words, are displayed in that color. A complicated set of rules is layed out for how to talk with people based on both your colors. (Or a simple set, like "Never Talk to people with other colors.") This is sitewide
A1) Normsets can be changed, A2) They can't, A3) They're algorithmically assigned.
B) Like A, except Colors are confined to a comment section.
B1) Like, except whenever someone writes their first comment in a comment section, they choose a color.
B2) People can post comments with different colors, but keep it the same for the same conversation.
B3) You can change it at any time.
[3] When I wrote this I meant "who is going to moderate comments sections of posts tagged "Normset Z"."
The question associated with it's literal form is still worth asking (if anyone can make norms/groups).
Can we have different settings for subthreads than for a main post (or for the parent comment)? It seems like it might be helpful for a commenter making a semi-humorous comment, or diving into a side-point, to be able to signal that any responses to the comment have different expectations than responses to the main post.
note: this post is about gathering data for "what might the archipelago model look like if implemented on LW", which is s separate question from "should the archipelago model be implemented on LW?"
Periodically, I've argued for applying Archipelago-style norms to LessWrong (i.e. give people the tools to establish different norms and culture, then let them experiment however they want, and let the best cultures attract participants)
One cost of this approach is that it's much harder to keep track of which space you're in, and what the rules are. This could be disorienting.
There are various ways to streamline that process. For example, we could (and I expect will, at least on desktop computers) make it so that as soon as you start typing a comment, the moderation norms for the relevant post appear next to your comment box, so it's much easier to see what norms you're expected to follow.
But if there were *hundreds* of different types of norms, this might still get a bit bewildering (in particular if each set of norms had a lot of nuance to it), and place too high a burden on commenters.
One thing I'm wondering is how many different normsets there actually are demand for, among authors. (I do think it's important to ground this out in "what authors want" rather than "what commenters want" since the authors are doing the bulk of the work, and the conversations won't happen at all without them, with the caveat that I think it's a fine outcome for an author to write a post with one set of comment-norms, and someone who prefers other norms to write up a post titled "Discussing Bob's Post X" that sets different norms).
Knobs that I could imagine an author wanting to turn include:
It'd be convenient if this turned out to compress into 2-4 major sets of norms (which could then be made clearly visually distinct)
As an author, or as a person who thinks they'd actively be motivated to write posts akin to "Discussing Bob's Ideas X through Normset Z", what are the commenting norms you'd want to have?