[Edit: I now realize that this is what Spencer discussed below and other people have been discussing too. But maybe the community norms roadmap makes it seem less pie-in-the-sky]
I first had this idea about that Toby Ord post a few months back, and regret not writing it up then.
Idea:
I think people who write something that could be considered a “criticism” (or worse, a “hitpiece”) should send a heads-up message to the person in question, with their finished post attached.
Example:
“Hey, I have written [this post] about things I am concerned about regarding you/you project. I plan to post it on the EA Forum on [date]. I understand this is unfortunate and troubling from your perspective and you will probably want to respond. That’s why I’m letting you know my publishing date. You have until then to write a response, which I expect you will want to post shortly after I make this one go live. (optional: I am available to read your response post before I publish my piece if you wish, but I would need your retort by [earlier date] to take your response into account.)”
How it might become a norm:
Forum mods and power users could comment on critical posts that giving heads up with final drafts attached is the advised way for future criticism.
After seeing this advised for month or so, users would start actually doing it. And they would probably add transparency blurbs about it at the tops of their criticisms and responses, further educating readers on criticism norms.
After seeing this recommended and practiced for a couple more months, the cultural norm would be established.
Once the norm is established, people who don’t give warning of their criticism and time for response should be frowned upon/possibly even given a moderation warning.
Being blindsided by people posting bad stuff about you on a forum really sucks, and the ongoing threat of such a surprise is bad for the community. I think a norm like this could do a lot of good and be low effort for critics.
I think it’s probable that Ben tried to do something fair like this here by talking to Kat/Emerson, but I think that doesn’t do the full thing. For example, Kat may have felt that she had responded adequately to some of the concerns over chat, enough that they would be dropped from any final piece, and be surprised and blindsided to see some parts dug up here. [Edit: She may also be surprised by the very confidently-worded conclusion Ben made against Nonlinear.]
That’s why I think sending the actual final draft of the post with some buffer time to compose a public-facing response is much fairer. I admit that refuting things in writing can be very time consuming, so it’s still helpful and good for the critic to offer a conversation. But if a conversation occurs (as it did here), I think a final draft and chance to write a response for the forum should still be offered, in addition. There’s no replacing seeing the precise claims as-written before the rest of your community does.
[Edit: I now realize that this is what Spencer discussed below and other people have been discussing too. But maybe the community norms roadmap makes it seem less pie-in-the-sky]
I first had this idea about that Toby Ord post a few months back, and regret not writing it up then.
Idea: I think people who write something that could be considered a “criticism” (or worse, a “hitpiece”) should send a heads-up message to the person in question, with their finished post attached.
Example: “Hey, I have written [this post] about things I am concerned about regarding you/you project. I plan to post it on the EA Forum on [date]. I understand this is unfortunate and troubling from your perspective and you will probably want to respond. That’s why I’m letting you know my publishing date. You have until then to write a response, which I expect you will want to post shortly after I make this one go live. (optional: I am available to read your response post before I publish my piece if you wish, but I would need your retort by [earlier date] to take your response into account.)”
How it might become a norm:
Forum mods and power users could comment on critical posts that giving heads up with final drafts attached is the advised way for future criticism.
After seeing this advised for month or so, users would start actually doing it. And they would probably add transparency blurbs about it at the tops of their criticisms and responses, further educating readers on criticism norms.
After seeing this recommended and practiced for a couple more months, the cultural norm would be established.
Once the norm is established, people who don’t give warning of their criticism and time for response should be frowned upon/possibly even given a moderation warning.
Being blindsided by people posting bad stuff about you on a forum really sucks, and the ongoing threat of such a surprise is bad for the community. I think a norm like this could do a lot of good and be low effort for critics.
I think it’s probable that Ben tried to do something fair like this here by talking to Kat/Emerson, but I think that doesn’t do the full thing. For example, Kat may have felt that she had responded adequately to some of the concerns over chat, enough that they would be dropped from any final piece, and be surprised and blindsided to see some parts dug up here. [Edit: She may also be surprised by the very confidently-worded conclusion Ben made against Nonlinear.]
That’s why I think sending the actual final draft of the post with some buffer time to compose a public-facing response is much fairer. I admit that refuting things in writing can be very time consuming, so it’s still helpful and good for the critic to offer a conversation. But if a conversation occurs (as it did here), I think a final draft and chance to write a response for the forum should still be offered, in addition. There’s no replacing seeing the precise claims as-written before the rest of your community does.