This is not spam per se, but it seems to annoy many people: your previous random link was at −11, and this one is already at −4. Also, none of your random links seem to attract any on-topic discussion, only meta-discussion about how annoying they are. Why do you continue? If you’re trying to make some point to the community, why not make that point more directly?
Broadly I’m trying to figure out what current community norms and expectations are and how they defer from the previous norms of the open thread with the overall aim of fixing and improving Less Wrong. Also I wanted to see if the Public International Law wiki article would rank higher than Bill+Hillary, as it probably should.
And yes, I should probably fix the problem by helping to create link sharing and off-topic sections, but it’s unfortunate that the discussion section as it exists doesn’t seem to work very well for this. I think it’s because the framing of the discussion section makes posts have the appearance of blog posts, rather than the weaker framing of root comments in the open thread.
In the short term I deleted this post and I’ll wait to make another link post until I predict it will get positive karma.
I’d rather you didn’t use LessWrong for experiments like that. You may be gaining insight about the community norm (for what purpose ?), but you’re also wasting everybody’s time.
At least two people have been banned in the past few months. One was an individual who insisted on talking about his revolutionary nanotechnology that was somehow connected to ancient Egyptian knowledge. The other was a possibly more reasonable individual who strongly did not play well with others. There have likely been more. Also keep in mind that sufficiently mentally disturbed people sometimes resemble spammers. So it is possible that some that have been banned for robotic spamming were actually humans.
Yes, although it seems that some of the early ones have been deleted (including the one where he wrote E=MC, and claimed that his ideas had been stolen by a famous rapper.)
This is not spam per se, but it seems to annoy many people: your previous random link was at −11, and this one is already at −4. Also, none of your random links seem to attract any on-topic discussion, only meta-discussion about how annoying they are. Why do you continue? If you’re trying to make some point to the community, why not make that point more directly?
Comment
Broadly I’m trying to figure out what current community norms and expectations are and how they defer from the previous norms of the open thread with the overall aim of fixing and improving Less Wrong. Also I wanted to see if the Public International Law wiki article would rank higher than Bill+Hillary, as it probably should.
And yes, I should probably fix the problem by helping to create link sharing and off-topic sections, but it’s unfortunate that the discussion section as it exists doesn’t seem to work very well for this. I think it’s because the framing of the discussion section makes posts have the appearance of blog posts, rather than the weaker framing of root comments in the open thread.
In the short term I deleted this post and I’ll wait to make another link post until I predict it will get positive karma.
Comment
I’d rather you didn’t use LessWrong for experiments like that. You may be gaining insight about the community norm (for what purpose ?), but you’re also wasting everybody’s time.
Cool it with the irrelevant unadorned links; you are getting downvoted for them, and if that doesn’t suffice to make them stop, there could be bans.
Comment
Kevin is a moderator too.
Comment
Yes, I know. I’m beginning to regret vouching for him now.
LessWrong has moderators?
Comment
Yes, I think several if not all of the "Top Contributors" are.
I do not know if any human has ever been banned, though.
Comment
At least two people have been banned in the past few months. One was an individual who insisted on talking about his revolutionary nanotechnology that was somehow connected to ancient Egyptian knowledge. The other was a possibly more reasonable individual who strongly did not play well with others. There have likely been more. Also keep in mind that sufficiently mentally disturbed people sometimes resemble spammers. So it is possible that some that have been banned for robotic spamming were actually humans.
Comment
Shoga, right? Just found his posts; they are amusing.
Comment
Yes, although it seems that some of the early ones have been deleted (including the one where he wrote E=MC, and claimed that his ideas had been stolen by a famous rapper.)
Comment
Jay-Z, to be specific, IIRC.
Comment
Huh. Same initials as me. Obviously further evidence of a conspiracy.
Who are these sorts of people? What is their background?
Well, ‘moderate’ might be the wrong word for it, at least around here. :P