> How can we trust that you are "logical"? There's probably very little we could quickly say to clearly demonstrate this, but you're free to look over our past messages or talk to us and then make your own determination.
> What do you mean by "open minded" and "critical" exactly?
It's hard to define exactly what we mean, but these should be decently close: "Open mindedness": Ratio of changed [false beliefs] to all adequately challenged [false beliefs]. "Criticalness": Ratio of rejected [false beliefs] to all rejected + accepted [false beliefs]. * "Belief" is here used to mean "meaningful belief", but it can refer to some very specific small thing as long as it is still meaningful. * "Adequately challenged" meaning something like: there is enough evidence given to the contrary that given no biases, efficient reasoning and decent calculation speed, one should be able to realize that the belief is false within at most a couple minutes.
We don't exactly mean the ratios of beliefs so much as something more like the ratios we would expect given your fundamental habits that would contribute to open mindedness and criticalness. Again, not easy to precisely define, at least for me so far.
> Why are the rules so broad? / Everyone breaks these rules. The rules are a WIP, but for the time being, the idea is to minimize the amount that you break the fundamental rules to a sufficient degree, rather than to completely avoid breaking them. You have to break them to a certain extent before we will warn/timeout/ban you. The main reason we make them so broad is to treat things using a more case-by-case method than traditional rules allow for. If someone breaks tons of traditional rules for very good reasons, I don't necessarily want any consequences to befall them. And, as part of demonstrating that the staff are at least relatively logical, I wanted our ruleset to be relatively open-ended to account for such edge-cases.
