Appreciated and information received

I meant to write "on LessWrong" and screwed up, aaargh! Thank you for noticing

Edit: That doesn't answer your comment directly. Yeah, I'm still not super comfortable with the brigading-y dynamics, but am okay with them existing in a called-out form.

Object-level I think Said was right most of the time, and doing an important job that almost no one else around here is willing to do.

For the record, I personally found the way Said engaged to be annoying at points because I would have preferred to make the same complaint about the post with more tact so that the author might actually fix the issue within 24 hours instead of taking that long to figure out what it was.

Since he had made the comment, it was often difficult to add mine (since the author was busy in another thread!). I don't really expect any decline in quality on LessWrong because I think the job Said was doing is ~fungible (though I hope everyone reading this comment could have guessed that I know that people are not).

I don't think "Not worth getting into" is impolite in any way.

I believe you are outright incorrect about how many people will receive this, then! Many people will, in fact, receive that statement as hostile, which will lead to it being underused by people who are concerned with politeness, which will lead to it correctly being perceived as statistically rude.

Thank you for the information! It seems good to get accounts like this from actual literal people. It also seems a little bad that someone is encouraging people who haven't interacted with Said [edited: on LessWrong.com] to come comment on his ban post. That seems like it could lead to bad dynamics.

I frequently expect people on the Lightcone team to disagree with decisions I make, and when that happens, I will encourage them to write up their perspective and serve as a record that will make it easier to spot broader blind spots in my decision-making (and also reduce gaslighting dynamics where people feel forced to support decisions I make out of fear of being retaliated against).

I don't know if you know this, but if you encourage this "correctly" (something that I suspect literally no one knows how to do but which we can aim for) it also helps you in that no one can accuse the team of being secretly fractious (since it would be public).

I call it "bleary" when I want to connote that it's fried-ness that isn't from overwork. I have not known that "fried" is what I'm contrasting it to until I read your comment and the words you chose. Thanks!

I think we should suspect that they've done some basic background research (this individual, not in general), and take the rest of the information about people failing to see improvements as data that also points this direction.

They (and initially I) read it as a question: "True or false: this market will resolve No at the end of 2025?"

Pie day!