Search Ideas

Well, if you were to open the letter anyway, and somebody criticized you for it, you could offer the following counter-criticisms: 1) you cannot be expected to adopt an idea while being prevented from entertaining it; 2) somebody constructed a situation designed to abuse the literal content of the two rules in #2140 in order to violate their intention, which is to promote critical thinking and rationality; 3) just because ideas have no pending criticisms doesn’t mean you don’t get to question those ideas – otherwise no one could ever submit a first criticism.

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? Assume that it has no pending counter-criticisms. Have we constructed an unreadable letter?

Make a reasonable effort to make the criticism explicit so it can be brought into direct conflict with the idea and examined further.

What if I have an inexplicit criticism of the idea?

What if I have an inexplicit criticism of the idea?

Not necessarily. Maybe somebody just forgot to reply or doesn’t know what to say.

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all. Have we constructed an unreadable letter?

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea, and it has a note attached to it stating that it contains such a criticism. Should I open the letter? It has no pending counter-criticisms, after all.

You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no otherwise reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.

Yeah. You wouldn’t even know that what the criticism is before reading it.

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. Should I read it?

How about I hold this idea to be true: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?

The premise sounds contrived because you couldn’t have only that one idea in isolation. You’d have to know about letters, and reading them, and criticisms, and so on.

How about I have one known idea: ‘entertaining criticisms is good.’ But I receive a letter purporting to contain a criticism of this idea. What do I do?

You’d know it’s a DDoS long before reviewing all the contents. That amount of criticism in a short time is suspicious, so you’d investigate for signs of coordination. Companies investigating actual DDoSes don’t need to review every single request to know they’re being DDoS’ed. And no reasonable person could blame them if a few good requests get dropped during their defense efforts.

But how do I know that’s what’s going on before I get through the content of the 1000 criticisms or whatever. There could be a valid one in there! Maybe from someone unaffiliated with the attack.

Attack means bad faith, which is a type of counter-criticism.

How do you not make yourself vulnerable to DDoS attacks on your life and actions under this system?

Veritula should have some way to indicate agreement; some way to indicate that a particular thread of a discussion is resolved, at least for the time being.

But not everyone will always use the platform in an ideal way, and I don’t want to make it easier for issues to compound.

That only happens if people submit bulk ideas, and people shouldn’t do that anyway.

Reactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.

That limits the scope of the problem but doesn’t eliminate it. A single recipient could still react in a distracting way.

Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.

Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes with multiple screens.