Influencing the creation of Professor Quirrel in HPMOR and being influenced by Professor Quirrel in HPMOR both seem to correlate with being a bad actor in EA—a potential red flag to watch out for.
An alleged sexual abuser who’s been banned from the community for some years. Normally I’d go with “name and shame” but iirc the accusers specifically did not want that to happen. See my earlier notes here.
(I gave it a small-downvote) I currently think that representation of the person in question is pretty inaccurate. I have various problems with them, one of the primary ones is that they threatened an EA community institution with a libel lawsuit, which you might have picked up I am not a huge fan of, but your comment to me seemed to be more likely to mislead (and to somewhat miasmically propagate a narrative I consider untrustworthy), and also that specific request for privacy still strikes me as illegitimate (as I have commented on the relevant posts).
your comment to me seemed to be more likely to mislead (and to somewhat miasmically propagate a narrative I consider untrustworthy)
Do you have a probability that the figure in question is sexually abusive? (Defined as “with full knowledge of the facts, >60% of readers of this comment would consider my original description fair, even after dropping the word ‘alleged.’”)
I didn’t look into the allegations myself because from my perspective, my opinion on that particular Voldemort figure seems more than a bit overdetermined. (But I agree that it’d be bad to falsely propagate an untrue narrative about a specific deficiency).
and also that specific request for privacy still strikes me as illegitimate
Fair. I’m pretty confused about the relevant norms here, I think (as I’m sure you/Ben/Lightcone have noticed) getting whistleblowers to talk is sometimes quite difficult, so respecting their wishes seems like a good heuristic/policy. But I haven’t thought about that particular policy in detail either.
Hans: Have courage, my friend! Erich: Yeah. Er.… Hans, I’ve just noticed something. Hans:(looking through binoculars) These Communists are all cowards! Erich: Have you looked at our caps recently? Hans:(lowers binoculars) Our caps? Erich: The badges on our caps. Have you looked at them? Hans: What?… No… A bit. Erich: …They’ve got skulls on them. Hans: Hm? Erich: Have you noticed our caps have actually got little pictures of skulls on them? Hans: Er… I don’t, erm... Erich: Hans… are we the baddies?
....
Hans: Well — maybe they’re the skulls of our enemies! Erich: Maybe. But is that how it comes across? I mean, it doesn’t say next to the skull, y’know, “Yeah, we killed him, but trust us, this guy was horrid”! Hans: Well, no, but— Erich: I mean, what do skulls make you think of? Death. Cannibals. Beheading. Erm… pirates... Hans:(brightening) Pirates are fun! Erich: I didn’t say we weren’t fun, but, fun or not, pirates are still the baddies. I just can’t think of anything good about a skull! Hans: What about pure Aryan skull shape? Erich: Even that is more usually depicted with the skin still on! Whereas the Allies— Hans: Oh, you haven’t been listening to Allied propaganda? Of course, they’re gonna say we’re the bad guys! Erich: But they didn’t get to design our uniforms! And their symbols are all, y’know, quite nice! Stars, stripes, lions, sickles...
Emphasis mine. How do you know someone’s a bad actor, scary to be around, psychopathic, literally Voldemort, etc? Well sometimes the call is actually pretty hard and requires a lot of detailed investigations, nuanced contextual understanding, etc. But in some other times, they’ll just tell you.
Influencing the creation of Professor Quirrel in HPMOR and being influenced by Professor Quirrel in HPMOR both seem to correlate with being a bad actor in EA—a potential red flag to watch out for.
Who’s the other example?
An alleged sexual abuser who’s been banned from the community for some years. Normally I’d go with “name and shame” but iirc the accusers specifically did not want that to happen. See my earlier notes here.
Confused about the downvotes.
(I gave it a small-downvote) I currently think that representation of the person in question is pretty inaccurate. I have various problems with them, one of the primary ones is that they threatened an EA community institution with a libel lawsuit, which you might have picked up I am not a huge fan of, but your comment to me seemed to be more likely to mislead (and to somewhat miasmically propagate a narrative I consider untrustworthy), and also that specific request for privacy still strikes me as illegitimate (as I have commented on the relevant posts).
Do you have a probability that the figure in question is sexually abusive? (Defined as “with full knowledge of the facts, >60% of readers of this comment would consider my original description fair, even after dropping the word ‘alleged.’”)
I didn’t look into the allegations myself because from my perspective, my opinion on that particular Voldemort figure seems more than a bit overdetermined. (But I agree that it’d be bad to falsely propagate an untrue narrative about a specific deficiency).
Fair. I’m pretty confused about the relevant norms here, I think (as I’m sure you/Ben/Lightcone have noticed) getting whistleblowers to talk is sometimes quite difficult, so respecting their wishes seems like a good heuristic/policy. But I haven’t thought about that particular policy in detail either.
Relevant clip:
Emphasis mine. How do you know someone’s a bad actor, scary to be around, psychopathic, literally Voldemort, etc? Well sometimes the call is actually pretty hard and requires a lot of detailed investigations, nuanced contextual understanding, etc. But in some other times, they’ll just tell you.
I recommend that you use a spoiler tag for that last part. Not everyone who wants to has finished the story!
Edited, thank you!