Open thread, October 30 - November 5, 2017

I hadn't heard about the vote part. Do we know the actual text of the measure under consideration? More importantly, who has standing to vote, and upon whom is the vote binding?

Another take: This site is dead with practically no traffic. LW2.0 has various issues and missing features: from a development team perspective it's still in a lengthy beta phase but practically speaking and from a general user viewpoint it can be considered to have fully replaced this site.

Will the posts here be deleted or will their URLs change? I have some useful URLs here and they are linked in published scientific articles, so if the site will be demolished they will not work, and I hope it will not happen.

My husband said "He's not a pseudoscientist! He's just sick!" :)

but surely a normal person who makes a list of about 50 items can't update daily? they have stuff to do.

I tried posting at CMV but didn't find anyone interesting. I generally look for any good individuals at forums. I have a ton of discussion experience and am familiar with people's unwillingness to provide clear targets for possible criticism/refutation. Most people are also largely unwilling to answer direct questions in short, clear ways and unwilling to correct mistakes they made. E.g. I've routinely found people unwilling to correct misquotes (a type of mistake which is especially easy to judge objectively). Those are some of the reasons I try to focus on specific individuals who are better than that.

I'm not a Bayesian but I too take issue with agreeing to disagree. It's ironic that the Aumann's agreement theorem references Scott Aaronson about the possibility of rational people efficiently agreeing because he refused to discuss some points of disagreement with me (and did not claim I was being irrational as the reason).

I appreciate the list of Epistemic humility, Good faith, Confidence in the existence of objective truth, Curiosity and/or a desire to uncover truth. And I appreciate the idea of stating out loud that one is tapping out, though I'd often prefer to move the discussion to methodology instead of giving up immediately.

EDIT: BTW I'd be happy to answer an indefinitely long series of questions and arguments about my views if anyone here thinks they could point out anything I'm mistaken about.

Gardeners?

Not sure why you want to find a different expression for "moderators", but other than online I think that people with this dual role are conventionally called "reviewers" (as e.g. in the peer review context) or, maybe, "editors".

I like "sunshine regiment" as an acknowledgement that it's a fundamentally combative activity, and accepted as a necessity for goodness. It's more Orwellian to call them "moderators", as if they somehow made people less extreme. And while it'd be honest to call them "censors", I'd rather have the reminder that they're supposed to be cheerful and positive about it.