Thanks for this comment! I think youâve pointed out a few places where this post clearly isnât comprehensive. Iâm not sure how frequently asked these questions will be, but in case they are, some quickfire answers:
If someone makes a post that criticizes someone on the forum but does not reach out to the target of their criticism first, would you consider that to be violating a norm of the forum, even if that violation wonât result in any enforcement?
NoâI mistakenly used the word norms in an ambiguous sentence in the second section. Iâve changed the word to practices. Reaching out to a critiqued organisation or person, or giving right of reply are âpractices weâd like to encourageâ rather than new norms. In practice this means that we (the mods) will advise people to follow these practices in many cases, and in many cases, will help reduce friction (by doing the reaching out on the critics behalf for example).
What is in scope for âcriticismâ in this context?
This is a good question. I could cop out with a âI know it when I see itâ which is partially true. But broadly I think the type of criticism we are more concerned about/â would more strongly encourage to follow these practices is criticism which could damage the reputation of an organisation or individual if was read without a response. General disagreement/â critical engagement with the ideas of an organisation could technically fall into this category, but is generally read as more collaborative than as an accusation of wrongdoing. Tone probably matters a bit here. Others on the mod team may have different views on this question.
I think its not uncommon that critics and their targets have major disagreements about whether these types of beliefs are reasonable. When can one invoke this type of reasoning for not reaching out?
When itâs reasonable to do so. I think the Forum is naturally quite sceptical and wonât let bad faith arguments stand for long, so in many cases, I donât think it will matter if a bad faith response is published alongside a critique. But itâs a little hard to form a principle here (hence practices, not norms).
NOTE: I will abbreviate (âreaching outâ + âright to replyâ as R+R)
Appreciate the clarification. Do you have any advice for people like myself who have a very different perspective on the value of what you recommend (i.e. R+R)? The way you have described it, I would normal consider the decision of what to do to be within my discretion as a poster. As an analogy, I try to write well reasoned arguments, but I understand that not too infrequently I will probably fail to do so. I might write something and think that I could refine the arguments if I took more time but decide what I have is good enough. But R+R seems much more binary than âmake well reasoned argumentsâ. Its hard for me to shake the feeling that it would be perceived as doing something distinctly âwrongâ to fail to do so in certain cases.
General disagreement/â critical engagement with the ideas of an organisation could technically fall into this category, but is generally read as more collaborative than as an accusation of wrongdoing.
This seems like it could get awfully messy. I think strong disagreements tend to coincide with different views on the nature of the criticism and how accusatory it is, what appropriate tone is etc. It seems like the exact cases where some guidance is most needed are when people will heavily contest these types of issues.
Related to that, one of my concerns is focusing too much on R+R may predictably lead to what I consider unproductive discussions. I think back-and-forth among people who disagree has great value. I worry focusing on R+R has a âgoing metaâ problem. People will argue about whether the degree of R+R done by the critic was justified instead of focusing on the object level merits of the criticism. The R+R debate can become a proxy war for people whoâs main crux is really the merits.
I also worry that expectations around R+R wonât necessarily be applied consistently. I worry that R+R is in a sense a âregressive taxâ on criticism, that R+R may in practice advantage orgs with more influence over orgs/âpeople with less influence. I also worry that there may a âright targetsâ dynamic, where people criticizing âthe right targetsâ may not be subject to the same expectations as people targeting well-liked EA orgs. This is why some of my questions above relate to âwhoâ R+R applies to.
I think the Forum is naturally quite sceptical and wonât let bad faith arguments stand for long
I agree with this, but the logic to me suggests that R+R might not really be needed? The OP raises the concern that orgs will have to scramble to answer criticism, but if they think people on the Forum will find the criticism might be warranted, doesnât that indicate that it would in fact be valuable for the org to respond? I personally think this overall would produce a better result without R+R, because orgs could in some (perhaps many) cases rely on commenters to do the work, and only feel the need to respond when a response provides information that the community doesnât have but would find useful. The fact that they feel the need to respond is a signal that there is information missing that they may uniquely have access to. Are you saying you think the Forum can identify bad faith but canât identify criticism quality as accurately?
I donât think it will matter if a bad faith response is published alongside a critique.
I agree, but I think similar reasoning applies to the initial criticism. Its obviously not good to have bad criticism, but its not the end of the world, and I think its often reasonably likely that the Forum will respond appropriately. I think to the extend possible it would be good to have symmetry where there arenât specific things required because a post is âcriticismâ.
Thanks for this comment! I think youâve pointed out a few places where this post clearly isnât comprehensive. Iâm not sure how frequently asked these questions will be, but in case they are, some quickfire answers:
NoâI mistakenly used the word norms in an ambiguous sentence in the second section. Iâve changed the word to practices. Reaching out to a critiqued organisation or person, or giving right of reply are âpractices weâd like to encourageâ rather than new norms. In practice this means that we (the mods) will advise people to follow these practices in many cases, and in many cases, will help reduce friction (by doing the reaching out on the critics behalf for example).
This is a good question. I could cop out with a âI know it when I see itâ which is partially true. But broadly I think the type of criticism we are more concerned about/â would more strongly encourage to follow these practices is criticism which could damage the reputation of an organisation or individual if was read without a response. General disagreement/â critical engagement with the ideas of an organisation could technically fall into this category, but is generally read as more collaborative than as an accusation of wrongdoing. Tone probably matters a bit here. Others on the mod team may have different views on this question.
When itâs reasonable to do so. I think the Forum is naturally quite sceptical and wonât let bad faith arguments stand for long, so in many cases, I donât think it will matter if a bad faith response is published alongside a critique. But itâs a little hard to form a principle here (hence practices, not norms).
NOTE: I will abbreviate (âreaching outâ + âright to replyâ as R+R)
Appreciate the clarification. Do you have any advice for people like myself who have a very different perspective on the value of what you recommend (i.e. R+R)? The way you have described it, I would normal consider the decision of what to do to be within my discretion as a poster. As an analogy, I try to write well reasoned arguments, but I understand that not too infrequently I will probably fail to do so. I might write something and think that I could refine the arguments if I took more time but decide what I have is good enough. But R+R seems much more binary than âmake well reasoned argumentsâ. Its hard for me to shake the feeling that it would be perceived as doing something distinctly âwrongâ to fail to do so in certain cases.
This seems like it could get awfully messy. I think strong disagreements tend to coincide with different views on the nature of the criticism and how accusatory it is, what appropriate tone is etc. It seems like the exact cases where some guidance is most needed are when people will heavily contest these types of issues.
Related to that, one of my concerns is focusing too much on R+R may predictably lead to what I consider unproductive discussions. I think back-and-forth among people who disagree has great value. I worry focusing on R+R has a âgoing metaâ problem. People will argue about whether the degree of R+R done by the critic was justified instead of focusing on the object level merits of the criticism. The R+R debate can become a proxy war for people whoâs main crux is really the merits.
I also worry that expectations around R+R wonât necessarily be applied consistently. I worry that R+R is in a sense a âregressive taxâ on criticism, that R+R may in practice advantage orgs with more influence over orgs/âpeople with less influence. I also worry that there may a âright targetsâ dynamic, where people criticizing âthe right targetsâ may not be subject to the same expectations as people targeting well-liked EA orgs. This is why some of my questions above relate to âwhoâ R+R applies to.
I agree with this, but the logic to me suggests that R+R might not really be needed? The OP raises the concern that orgs will have to scramble to answer criticism, but if they think people on the Forum will find the criticism might be warranted, doesnât that indicate that it would in fact be valuable for the org to respond? I personally think this overall would produce a better result without R+R, because orgs could in some (perhaps many) cases rely on commenters to do the work, and only feel the need to respond when a response provides information that the community doesnât have but would find useful. The fact that they feel the need to respond is a signal that there is information missing that they may uniquely have access to. Are you saying you think the Forum can identify bad faith but canât identify criticism quality as accurately?
I agree, but I think similar reasoning applies to the initial criticism. Its obviously not good to have bad criticism, but its not the end of the world, and I think its often reasonably likely that the Forum will respond appropriately. I think to the extend possible it would be good to have symmetry where there arenât specific things required because a post is âcriticismâ.