I’m unclear on the proposal here. I’ve taken your bit in italics and adapted it to the EA context:
For three months after an EAG(x) or EA retreat, and for one month after an evening event, community organisers who organised the event, or speakers/organisers at the conference/retreat are prohibited from engaging romantically, or even hinting at engaging romantically, with attendees. The only exception is when a particular attendee and the facilitator already dated beforehand.
Is this what you had in mind? This would mean:
If an organiser of a local community organises monthly events, they wouldn’t be able to date any regular attendee of those events
People who were organising an EAG in a low-key, not-visible way would be forbidden from dating an attendee, or we would need to define a bar for visibility
Conference attendees are not prohibited from hitting on other attendees (at least not according to this specific rule)
Overall, I’d find it much easier to work out whether this is a useful proposal if I were clearer on what is being proposed.
Overall, I’d find it much easier to work out whether this is a useful proposal if I were clearer on what is being proposed.
Agree. It’s a big ask, but I would also find it much easier to evaluate this if there were examples of something negative that would have been prevented by this policy.
Are there any other instances of harm that we know about that would have been prevented by this policy, besides the cases at CFAR?
I’m unclear on the proposal here. I’ve taken your bit in italics and adapted it to the EA context:
Is this what you had in mind? This would mean:
If an organiser of a local community organises monthly events, they wouldn’t be able to date any regular attendee of those events
People who were organising an EAG in a low-key, not-visible way would be forbidden from dating an attendee, or we would need to define a bar for visibility
Conference attendees are not prohibited from hitting on other attendees (at least not according to this specific rule)
Overall, I’d find it much easier to work out whether this is a useful proposal if I were clearer on what is being proposed.
Agree. It’s a big ask, but I would also find it much easier to evaluate this if there were examples of something negative that would have been prevented by this policy.
Are there any other instances of harm that we know about that would have been prevented by this policy, besides the cases at CFAR?