Ben, et al, A proposed "solution":
How about some rules on the composition of the first lines of postings, e.g. if it has to do with Open Cog, then "OpenCog" should be on the subject line. If someone is disparaging someone else, then put "disparage" on the first line, etc. My postings are often about new theories, so I should probably put "new theory" on the first line. Anyway, if you would post a set of these snippets that cover most postings, then everyone could program their spam filter as they wished, e.g. to exclude "disparage" postings, if OpenCog is their primary interest then they might want to exclude my "new theory" postings, etc. The subject lines should remain as they are, as many/most email client programs compare subject lines to track threads rather than looking as past references, which is in violation of some RFCs. As for me, none of these problems bother me a bit, so I probably wouldn't even bother adjusting my spam filter. I know that Richard has the adrenal issues that are so typical of his 96.something daytime body temperatures, so I make suitable allowances, just like I allow for profanities from people with Tourette's Syndrome. Richard is obviously VERY bright, so I just fast forward past his tirades (which have in the past been in my direction) and pickup his tidbits of wisdom. I'm sure that Richard is fully capable of putting "disparage" on the first lines of postings where he is disparaging someone else. I definitely do NOT want moderation or filtering of any sort, other than what people decide to impose upon themselves. However, as explained above, I have no problem giving people the tools to filter themselves as they wish. BTW, as mentioned by others, I too would like a 10 page explanation of the "prevailing theory", which would probably mutate as people redirect their efforts. Is there a hyperlink for this? Steve Richfield ================== On 8/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Harry -- > > Thanks a lot, I really appreciate your message. It is good to get > contributions on these META themes from individuals who are *not* among the > 5-10% of list members who frequently post. > > If any other lurkers or semi-lurkers have opinions on these META issues, I > and others would be interested to hear from you... > > Ben G > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Harry Chesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have never posted to the list before for exactly the reasons under >> discussion. It seems to me that the list is dominated, in terms of volume, >> not, I think, in terms of people, by two types of posts: 1) You don't >> understand theory x, which explains why your idea or approach is unworkable; >> you need to spend hours (perhaps days) reading about that (my) theory. Or 2) >> You're an idiot and your ideas are trash. >> >> I am pursuing a line of research that I believe has potential. It would be >> useful to have a place I could float ideas and get some feedback. While I'm >> not particularly thin skinned, I don't have the time to deal with excursions >> into entirely different theories or to deal with the distractive emotional >> baggage that's so common here. I would also be happy to provide feedback to >> posts by others, but I don't want to get dragged into heated and often >> content-sparse threads of discussion. >> >> I have seen very good and productive threads on this list, but they tend >> to be the exception. Hence I mostly just delete the items from the list, and >> follow the occasional thread that looks interesting or involves people who >> have posted more reasonable items in the past. As with most lists, 90% of >> the content is generated by 10% of the members. In this case, that involves >> much unnecessary distraction and unpleasantness. >> >> Giving posters "time out"s for personal attacks might go a long way toward >> calming the list down and encouraging some of the people like me to become >> more involved. Also, a list FAQ that includes pointers to some of the >> theories that get repeated endlessly, together with encouragement to the >> posters to just post the FAQ's URL rather than repeating the entire theory, >> might reduce the repetition. (Wasn't there a wiki area exactly for that >> started a while ago?) >> >> Anyway, that's my two cents. >> >> On 8/3/2008 6:13 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here are a couple random responses to suggestions by others within this >>> thread... >>> >>> Nesov wrote, and Mark Waser concurred: >>> >>> " >>> I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters >>> who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise >>> ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but >>> moderation is needed for content, not just "politeness". >>> " >>> >>> My response is that >>> >>> -- Moderation for politeness, and for *form* of posts, is fairly easy to >>> do in an objective way >>> >>> -- Moderation for content is a lot more subjective, and I don't want to >>> be perceived as imposing my own particular views on AGI on this mailing >>> list. So I'm a bit wary of this. >>> >>> Hector suggested >>> >>> " >>> What about also some minimal credentials (not necessarily academical >>> achievements but a minimal proof of knowledge and logical thought) as it is >>> required at other mailing lists... >>> " >>> >>> However, it seems to me that the most boring, repetitive and irritating >>> conversations on this list generally involve individuals who *do* have >>> "above minimal credentials" in AGI. >>> >>> The only exception I can think of would be some of the repetitive >>> conversations involving Mike Tintner, who isn't professionally experienced >>> in AGI or directly related fields of science so far as I know (though I >>> could be wrong) >>> >>> I do think that this list has recently become dominated by long, somewhat >>> repetitive arguments between a relatively small number of people. I myself >>> have stopped reading or posting very much partly because of this, even >>> though I'm the list administrator... >>> >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and >>> posters >>> who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise >>> ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but >>> moderation is needed for content, not just "politeness". >>> >>> >>> Normally I try to avoid "me too" posts -- but for those who felt >>> my last e-mail was too long, this is the essence of my argument >>> (and very well expressed). >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Nesov" >>> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>> >>> To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:25 AM >>> Subject: Re: [agi] META: do we need a stronger "politeness code" >>> on this list? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as >>> many of Richard's >>> (which are frequently full of language like "fools", >>> "rubbish" and so forth >>> ...). >>> >>> Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. >>> >>> I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of >>> politeness on this list if >>> that is what the membership wants. I have been told >>> before, in other >>> contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. >>> >>> Anyone else have an opinion on this? >>> >>> >>> I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and >>> posters >>> who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise >>> ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but >>> moderation is needed for content, not just "politeness". >>> >>> -- Vladimir Nesov >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> agi >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >>> >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> agi >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>> >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >>> Director of Research, SIAI >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first >>> overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [Powered by >>> Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
