4 ms·
I think it's an unreliable standard? Like, everything people say could incite flaming given the right situation. So saying that something could when it doesn't
by xracy 4y ago
I think it's an unreliable standard?
Like, everything people say could incite flaming given the right situation. So saying that something could when it doesn't is an arbitrary standard. Also you can't run the statistical risk more than once, so your sample size will always be 1.
- dang 4y agoThe general case is quite reliable. If a commenter posts the way you did, the expected value is most certainly a flamewar, and that's obviously the basis on which we have to moderate the site, precisely because we can't predict the specific outcome in any given case. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- xracy 4y agoBut... you're moderating after the discussions have happened. You can moderate on the outcome by the point that you flagged my comment. And the outcome is not actually a flamewar. Also, that's why there are humans moderating, not bots, if you wanted to moderate based on a formula, you could just have a bot do this.
- dang 4y agoThe random outcome isn't the important thing. If I ride my bike in front of a car and don't get hit, does that mean it was safe to do so? No—it just means I got lucky. We have to moderate for the general case! I'm not sure what else to tell you!