(1) I updated significantly in the direction of “Nonlinear leadership has a better case for themselves than I initially thought” and “it seems likely to me that the initial post indeed was somewhat careless with fact-checking.”
(I’m still confused about some of the fact-checking claims, especially the specific degree to which Emerson flagged early on that there were dozens of extreme falsehoods, or whether this only happened when Ben said that he was about to publish the post. Is it maybe possible that Emerson’s initial reply had little else besides “Some points still require clarification,” and Emerson only later conveyed how strongly he disagreed with the overall summary once he realized that Ben was basically set on publishing on a 2h notice? If so, that’s very different from Ben being told in the very first email reply that Nonlinear’s stance on this is basically “good summary, but also dozens of claims are completely false and we can document that.” That’s such a stark difference, so it feels to me like there was miscommunication going on.)
At the same time:
(2) I still find Chloe’s broad perspective credible and concerning (in a “this is difficult work environment with definite potential for toxicity” rather than “this is outright abusive on all reasonable definitions of the word”). The replies by Nonlinear leadership didn’t change my initial opinion here by too much because there are features of how Kat and Emerson are presenting their side of things that make me think “ah, I see it: not surprised Chloe felt negative emotions about her perceived standing in relation to them.” (Admittedly, I think if I applied more charitable priors here, I could see alternative explanations like “the negative features I believe I see here are best explained by Kat and Emerson feeling hurt and upset by things Chloe said, so they come across as defensive and one-sided in return, but they’d be better able to see and re-state Chloe’s perspective if they were more distanced from the events, and may have been better at seeing Chloe’s perspective earlier, before they all had a falling out.”)
To elaborate on (1):
If Nonlinear’s description of Alice is even halfway accurate, then I feel like Ben should have decided not to air any of her claims altogether, and only gone with Chloe as the single source. This would have made clear that the picture is one of mostly just one person. This would probably have changed the forcefulness of the post by quite a bit, which would’ve been less immediately condemning towards Nonlinear (making the resulting discussion fairer).
I also thought some of the replies Nonlinear gave towards Chloe seemed more persuasive than I would’ve expected. (At the same time, I think many of their replies seemed roughly what I would have expected, and in fact seem arguably revealing to me in some ways – see my point below on “(2).” [I guess the people who disagree with me will think I’m still influenced by the priors I’ve formed from the previous discussion, and that it’s hard to be objective after having initially formed a negative-leaning view.])
To elaborate on (2)
I didn’t like the repeated mentions of phrases like “this would have been your dream day!” or “to many [...], this would have been their dream job!.” Sure, I get where this is coming from: Contrasted with accusations of not feeding people well or not paying them enough money, it makes sense to highlight that the role had lots of perks. At the same time, the lengths to which they went to highlight this, and the talk about hanging out with other high-status community heroes, gave me too much of a feeling that they almost expected Chloe and Alice to feel indebted towards them. I can see how this attitude would lead to difficult dynamics in a setting where you’re co-living and forming “what-can-feel-like-friendships” with people you also expect to do all sorts of tasks for you.
Relatedly, it’s begging the question to self-describe your group with “Your group has a really optimistic and warm vibe. There’s this sense in the group that anything is possible if you are just creative, brave, and never give up. It feels really empowering and inspiring.” It’s fair if Kat or Emerson perceived their group that way, but, evidently, Chloe felt very different about it. So, it feels like it’s not hearing her perspective when they describe things like that. This is a strange disconnect. (As another commenter pointed out, there’s a similar disconnect with posting the pictures of social fun and tropic scenery, without at least pointing out that it’s not actually what most of the discussion was about. I get the desire to share pictures, fwiw, but I think this could’ve been embedded with a framing that acknowledges the disconnect issue.)
(Also relatedly: On “warm vibes,” I’m remembering some of the screenshots in the food-ordering discussion made me feel like “I can see why Chloe wouldn’t necessarily feel like they’re being super warm towards her.” Not in a way that’s too bad or anything, but, Idk, something about how much value is put on productivity and the ability to negotiate, as opposed to, e.g., going out of one’s way to make sure Chloe feels comfortable voicing whenever she struggles with something or needs something when she’s sick or feeling low. [I’m not claiming that all employers need to be particularly warm or proactive about encouraging their employees to become better at asking for their basic needs to be met; I’m just pointing out that it’s problematic if there’s a mismatch between self-perceived warmth vibes and actual effect one has on others, combined with risky work setups like isolated travels and co-working with people who do tasks for you, and blurring potential-for-friendship and professional interactions.]) Overall, there just feels like too little engagement with the possibility that Chloe’s experience was maybe predictable and not out of the ordinary, i.e., that Chloe wasn’t entitled or disgruntled to react the way she did.
I thought some of the short-summary replies to Chloe seemed uncharitable to the point of being mean. For instance, this part: “CHLOE: I had unclear work boundaries and was pressured into working on a weekend (implies this was a regular occurrence). NONLINEAR: “My boss offered me an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caribbean island St. Barths, which required one hour of work to arrange the boat and ATV rentals (for me to enjoy too). But it was one hour on a weekend, so I complained, and it never happened again.” I remember reading Chloe’s account of this incident and it felt very different to me. When I read Chloe’s account, I could easily see where she was coming from. I admit that it’s okay to use hyperbole in a summary. Maybe they thought it’s okay because everyone can see that this is meant somewhat hyperbolically. However, the following is a case where it’s more unambiguously mean-spirited rather than just hyperbolic: “Complex situations she herself cites: ordering a taxi, asking for a ride, packing suitcases. [...] This is some of the best public evidence of her being mentally unwell. These are not overwhelming tasks for most people.” I feel like this is very unfair. Having read Chloe’s descriptions, I’d say it fails to engage with what makes these things complicated (people having various strong preferences about specifics related to the tasks, and you have juggle all of them and make everyone happy, while taking care of other constraints + brain fog from having worked too much before the weekend you’re supposed to have off).
“So how do we learn from this to make our community better? How can we make EA antifragile?” Maybe this is a minor point, but I don’t like this style of “writing things as though it’s now conclusively established that Ben and Chloe were in the wrong, so we can move on to lessons learned given that specific conclusion.” It feels premature. I also didn’t like this part: “I wish I could think that Alice, Ben, and Chloe were villains.” Ben and Chloe get tainted by association with Alice. The points made by Nonlinear against Alice are way more concerning-if-true than the points made against Chloe or Ben. (I’m not sure about the degree to which they are contested because some of it goes well beyond earlier things that were said about Alice, and people who know more context about Alice, which doesn’t describe me at all, haven’t had the chance to comment on this.)
Overall, I thought it’s simply implausible that the most Nonlinear leadership could come up with in terms of “things we could’ve done differently” (see their appendix on this) is stuff like “Emerson shouldn’t have snapped at Chloe during that one stressful day” or “we shouldn’t have have lived together with employees who weren’t previously assistants because, apparently, such employees cannot handle it and will think we’re friends.” (I’m being admittedly a bit unfair/hyperbolic here; also, note that there were like two or three other short items.) To be more fair, I realize that when you’re faced with lots of false accusations (and I agree many of the claims now seem dubious to me and probably uncalled for!), it’s understandable to focus mostly on defending yourself and on highlighting how outrageous everything is. However, I think there are several reasons to also focus a lot on what one could’ve done better. One: I think there’s almost always something one can learn from conflicts, even if one is genuinely 98% percent in the right and dealing with a person who has an unhealthy relationship to their own negative emotions that turn them into a wrecking ball of toxicity. Secondly, it’s sometimes hard to be right about things like that, so one kind of has a duty, when “fighting back,” to make sure one isn’t the one “in the wrong” rationalizing one’s negative perspective of the other party. Thirdly, and very related to the previous point, I feel like pointing out what one could’ve done differently is some of the more reliable types of evidence one can readily give in favor of not being someone who looks at things in a one-sided and distorted fashion. So, even if this is just about making sure one’s defense is credible, it’s strategically smart to inspect and point out what didn’t go well. Lastly, I noticed that the post and appendix by Nonlinear is quite well-written in terms of persuasive rhetoric across a number of dimensions, which makes me think that them not including a more comprehensive takeaways/”lessons learned” section is unlikely to be a simple strategic mistake (not realizing that this sort of thing is something that readers in the audience would look out for). Instead, it feels like maybe more a genuine display of their belief that they’re close to infallible. If this is the case, it’s easy to see why this attitude increases the potential for things to not go well interpersonally.
Even though many the things in my elaboration of “(2)” are negative about Nonlinear, I want to emphasize again that this post made me update positively about them and that I think it’s unfortunate how the initial presentation and resulting discussion was too one-sided. I appreciate the length of this post; it must have been very stressful and anxiety-inducing to feel compelled to write it. (I’m overall inclined to think that it was positive for them/their reputation to write it.)
I still find Chloe’s broad perspective credible and concerning [...] it’s begging the question to self-describe your group with “Your group has a really optimistic and warm vibe. [...]” some of the short-summary replies to Chloe seemed uncharitable to the point of being mean. [...] I thought it’s simply implausible that the most Nonlinear leadership could come up with in terms of “things we could’ve done differently” is stuff like “Emerson shouldn’t have snapped at Chloe during that one stressful day” [...] Even though many the things in my elaboration of “(2)” are negative about Nonlinear, I want to emphasize again that this post made me update positively about them [...]
I just noticed that Kat posted the following on Facebook Dec 13 @11:34 PST (after older thoughtful messages such as this one, and the ones from Yarrow, David Mathers, OllieBase, etc). It seems like Kat disregarded the community’s concerns and doubled down on her original PR strategy (including painting Alice and Chloe with the same brush):
Two mentally unwell ex-employees told dozens of falsehoods about us, but even in the darkest times, I told myself to trust that EAs/rationalists would update when they saw the evidence, and now I feel justified in that trust.
Turns out that 200+ pages of evidence showing that their accusations were false or misleading is enough for most people
It was very painful being #27 and #28 people that Alice has accused of persecuting/oppressing her, but today’s been a relief. 75% was our best case scenario, because we believed that ~30% of EAs would never update, since they follow “believe all people-claiming-to-be-victims” epistemics.
Our remaining critics have been largely silent on the evidence and mostly just criticize our ‘tone’ or stylistic choices, which is usually how you know you’ve won an argument.
I neither upvoted nor downvoted, so I’m a bit miffed at “75%” as a metric of support. Edit: I see some aren’t shy about downvoting though. Looks like Kat unfriended me on Facebook around the same time as this downvote. I think this is unfortunate, because I still think Kat is an EA at heart and that she could improve as a person by handling this situation differently.
Yeah, at least several comments have much more severe issues than tone or stylistic choices, like rewording ~every claim by Ben, Chloe and Alice, and then assuming that the transformed claims had the same truth value as the original claim.
I’m in a position very similar to Yarrow here: While I think Kat Woods has mostly convinced me that the most incendiary claims are likely false, and I’m sympathetic to the case for suing Ben and Habryka, there was dangerous red flags in the responses, so much so that I’d stop funding Nonlinear entirely, and I think it’s quite bad that Kat Woods responded the way they did.
Overall, there just feels like too little engagement with the possibility that Chloe’s experience was maybe predictable and not out of the ordinary, i.e., that Chloe wasn’t entitled or disgruntled to react the way she did.
To give some more context on this:
Let’s take the claim that it was discouraged to talk to friends or family (this was one of the things were I thought Nonlinear’s reply seemed more convincing than I would have expected, but still leaves me with uncertainty rather than settling everything for sure).
Nonlinear links to a screenshot with a policy named “Internal: policy for inviting guests.” The policy mentions “friends and family.” Nonlinear frame this as follows. Chloe was lying to claim that she was discouraged from talking to them, because the policy says otherwise. Because she was lying about it, we should discount what she says on other issues.
I’m thinking “maybe, but there are other possibilities.”
Firstly, I’m curious what the following phrase is about “the above roughly reflects the priority list as well.” Is “the priority list” a separate thing? Or is this talking about a ranking of priorities from top to bottom? Even if there’s no intended ranking from top to bottom, I feel like it’s not outlandish to come away with the impression that “friends and family” was maybe added somewhat grudgingly rather than enthusiastically, since another section in the screenshot justifies having visitors with “it can have an extremely high impact to have different people join us” and compares it to a “constant EAG.” (These things apply a lot less to family or EA-disinterested friends.)
Also, sometimes written policies don’t capture implicit sentiments. It’s possible for a policy to say “it’s okay/encouraged to do x” while simultaneously there’s some social pressure in the group to do very little x.
The discussion about the screenshot made it seem like the screenshot settles everything.
Instead, I’d have thought it’s more balanced to say something like “this screenshot at the very least shows that it wasn’t our official policy to discourage these things, so Chloe/Alice should have mentioned this for fairness reasons.”
We also show text messages of us encouraging them to invite people over. We even have text messages showing me encouraging Chloe to see her boyfriend sooner and her saying no. Alice invited multiple friends to travel with us. When Chloe quit one of her friends was visiting us for 2-4 weeks (can’t quite remember). To be fair, that friend we invited. But if she’d invited him, we would have been thrilled.
Their portrayal of us saying that only me and Emerson could invite people to travel with us is clearly established to be false.
On this point, your reply seems very compelling to me. ((Though it’s at least imaginable that Chloe would point out ways in which this is misleading – e.g., maybe her bf had “EA potential” or got along well with Emerson or you and some other friends of hers didn’t, and maybe someone made comments about her other friends. Idk.))
I think it’s important to not hold people to unreasonable standards when they try to present a lot of evidence. If this (the invites allowed list) is one of only few instances where it’s overstated how important a particular piece of evidence is, then that’s still totally compatible with a high degree of objectivity!
I overall felt like there were some other places where I was uncertain how much to update, while your wording “wanted” me to make a very big update. But I also think these things can be hard to judge.
I read this post and about half of the appendix.
(1) I updated significantly in the direction of “Nonlinear leadership has a better case for themselves than I initially thought” and “it seems likely to me that the initial post indeed was somewhat careless with fact-checking.”
(I’m still confused about some of the fact-checking claims, especially the specific degree to which Emerson flagged early on that there were dozens of extreme falsehoods, or whether this only happened when Ben said that he was about to publish the post. Is it maybe possible that Emerson’s initial reply had little else besides “Some points still require clarification,” and Emerson only later conveyed how strongly he disagreed with the overall summary once he realized that Ben was basically set on publishing on a 2h notice? If so, that’s very different from Ben being told in the very first email reply that Nonlinear’s stance on this is basically “good summary, but also dozens of claims are completely false and we can document that.” That’s such a stark difference, so it feels to me like there was miscommunication going on.)
At the same time:
(2) I still find Chloe’s broad perspective credible and concerning (in a “this is difficult work environment with definite potential for toxicity” rather than “this is outright abusive on all reasonable definitions of the word”). The replies by Nonlinear leadership didn’t change my initial opinion here by too much because there are features of how Kat and Emerson are presenting their side of things that make me think “ah, I see it: not surprised Chloe felt negative emotions about her perceived standing in relation to them.” (Admittedly, I think if I applied more charitable priors here, I could see alternative explanations like “the negative features I believe I see here are best explained by Kat and Emerson feeling hurt and upset by things Chloe said, so they come across as defensive and one-sided in return, but they’d be better able to see and re-state Chloe’s perspective if they were more distanced from the events, and may have been better at seeing Chloe’s perspective earlier, before they all had a falling out.”)
To elaborate on (1):
If Nonlinear’s description of Alice is even halfway accurate, then I feel like Ben should have decided not to air any of her claims altogether, and only gone with Chloe as the single source. This would have made clear that the picture is one of mostly just one person. This would probably have changed the forcefulness of the post by quite a bit, which would’ve been less immediately condemning towards Nonlinear (making the resulting discussion fairer).
I also thought some of the replies Nonlinear gave towards Chloe seemed more persuasive than I would’ve expected. (At the same time, I think many of their replies seemed roughly what I would have expected, and in fact seem arguably revealing to me in some ways – see my point below on “(2).” [I guess the people who disagree with me will think I’m still influenced by the priors I’ve formed from the previous discussion, and that it’s hard to be objective after having initially formed a negative-leaning view.])
To elaborate on (2)
I didn’t like the repeated mentions of phrases like “this would have been your dream day!” or “to many [...], this would have been their dream job!.” Sure, I get where this is coming from: Contrasted with accusations of not feeding people well or not paying them enough money, it makes sense to highlight that the role had lots of perks. At the same time, the lengths to which they went to highlight this, and the talk about hanging out with other high-status community heroes, gave me too much of a feeling that they almost expected Chloe and Alice to feel indebted towards them. I can see how this attitude would lead to difficult dynamics in a setting where you’re co-living and forming “what-can-feel-like-friendships” with people you also expect to do all sorts of tasks for you.
Relatedly, it’s begging the question to self-describe your group with “Your group has a really optimistic and warm vibe. There’s this sense in the group that anything is possible if you are just creative, brave, and never give up. It feels really empowering and inspiring.” It’s fair if Kat or Emerson perceived their group that way, but, evidently, Chloe felt very different about it. So, it feels like it’s not hearing her perspective when they describe things like that. This is a strange disconnect. (As another commenter pointed out, there’s a similar disconnect with posting the pictures of social fun and tropic scenery, without at least pointing out that it’s not actually what most of the discussion was about. I get the desire to share pictures, fwiw, but I think this could’ve been embedded with a framing that acknowledges the disconnect issue.) (Also relatedly: On “warm vibes,” I’m remembering some of the screenshots in the food-ordering discussion made me feel like “I can see why Chloe wouldn’t necessarily feel like they’re being super warm towards her.” Not in a way that’s too bad or anything, but, Idk, something about how much value is put on productivity and the ability to negotiate, as opposed to, e.g., going out of one’s way to make sure Chloe feels comfortable voicing whenever she struggles with something or needs something when she’s sick or feeling low. [I’m not claiming that all employers need to be particularly warm or proactive about encouraging their employees to become better at asking for their basic needs to be met; I’m just pointing out that it’s problematic if there’s a mismatch between self-perceived warmth vibes and actual effect one has on others, combined with risky work setups like isolated travels and co-working with people who do tasks for you, and blurring potential-for-friendship and professional interactions.]) Overall, there just feels like too little engagement with the possibility that Chloe’s experience was maybe predictable and not out of the ordinary, i.e., that Chloe wasn’t entitled or disgruntled to react the way she did.
I thought some of the short-summary replies to Chloe seemed uncharitable to the point of being mean. For instance, this part: “CHLOE: I had unclear work boundaries and was pressured into working on a weekend (implies this was a regular occurrence). NONLINEAR: “My boss offered me an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caribbean island St. Barths, which required one hour of work to arrange the boat and ATV rentals (for me to enjoy too). But it was one hour on a weekend, so I complained, and it never happened again.” I remember reading Chloe’s account of this incident and it felt very different to me. When I read Chloe’s account, I could easily see where she was coming from. I admit that it’s okay to use hyperbole in a summary. Maybe they thought it’s okay because everyone can see that this is meant somewhat hyperbolically. However, the following is a case where it’s more unambiguously mean-spirited rather than just hyperbolic: “Complex situations she herself cites: ordering a taxi, asking for a ride, packing suitcases. [...] This is some of the best public evidence of her being mentally unwell. These are not overwhelming tasks for most people.” I feel like this is very unfair. Having read Chloe’s descriptions, I’d say it fails to engage with what makes these things complicated (people having various strong preferences about specifics related to the tasks, and you have juggle all of them and make everyone happy, while taking care of other constraints + brain fog from having worked too much before the weekend you’re supposed to have off).
“So how do we learn from this to make our community better? How can we make EA antifragile?” Maybe this is a minor point, but I don’t like this style of “writing things as though it’s now conclusively established that Ben and Chloe were in the wrong, so we can move on to lessons learned given that specific conclusion.” It feels premature. I also didn’t like this part: “I wish I could think that Alice, Ben, and Chloe were villains.” Ben and Chloe get tainted by association with Alice. The points made by Nonlinear against Alice are way more concerning-if-true than the points made against Chloe or Ben. (I’m not sure about the degree to which they are contested because some of it goes well beyond earlier things that were said about Alice, and people who know more context about Alice, which doesn’t describe me at all, haven’t had the chance to comment on this.)
Overall, I thought it’s simply implausible that the most Nonlinear leadership could come up with in terms of “things we could’ve done differently” (see their appendix on this) is stuff like “Emerson shouldn’t have snapped at Chloe during that one stressful day” or “we shouldn’t have have lived together with employees who weren’t previously assistants because, apparently, such employees cannot handle it and will think we’re friends.” (I’m being admittedly a bit unfair/hyperbolic here; also, note that there were like two or three other short items.) To be more fair, I realize that when you’re faced with lots of false accusations (and I agree many of the claims now seem dubious to me and probably uncalled for!), it’s understandable to focus mostly on defending yourself and on highlighting how outrageous everything is. However, I think there are several reasons to also focus a lot on what one could’ve done better. One: I think there’s almost always something one can learn from conflicts, even if one is genuinely 98% percent in the right and dealing with a person who has an unhealthy relationship to their own negative emotions that turn them into a wrecking ball of toxicity. Secondly, it’s sometimes hard to be right about things like that, so one kind of has a duty, when “fighting back,” to make sure one isn’t the one “in the wrong” rationalizing one’s negative perspective of the other party. Thirdly, and very related to the previous point, I feel like pointing out what one could’ve done differently is some of the more reliable types of evidence one can readily give in favor of not being someone who looks at things in a one-sided and distorted fashion. So, even if this is just about making sure one’s defense is credible, it’s strategically smart to inspect and point out what didn’t go well. Lastly, I noticed that the post and appendix by Nonlinear is quite well-written in terms of persuasive rhetoric across a number of dimensions, which makes me think that them not including a more comprehensive takeaways/”lessons learned” section is unlikely to be a simple strategic mistake (not realizing that this sort of thing is something that readers in the audience would look out for). Instead, it feels like maybe more a genuine display of their belief that they’re close to infallible. If this is the case, it’s easy to see why this attitude increases the potential for things to not go well interpersonally.
Even though many the things in my elaboration of “(2)” are negative about Nonlinear, I want to emphasize again that this post made me update positively about them and that I think it’s unfortunate how the initial presentation and resulting discussion was too one-sided. I appreciate the length of this post; it must have been very stressful and anxiety-inducing to feel compelled to write it. (I’m overall inclined to think that it was positive for them/their reputation to write it.)
I just noticed that Kat posted the following on Facebook Dec 13 @11:34 PST (after older thoughtful messages such as this one, and the ones from Yarrow, David Mathers, OllieBase, etc). It seems like Kat disregarded the community’s concerns and doubled down on her original PR strategy (including painting Alice and Chloe with the same brush):
I neither upvoted nor downvoted, so I’m a bit miffed at “75%” as a metric of support. Edit: I see some aren’t shy about downvoting though. Looks like Kat unfriended me on Facebook around the same time as this downvote. I think this is unfortunate, because I still think Kat is an EA at heart and that she could improve as a person by handling this situation differently.
Yeah, at least several comments have much more severe issues than tone or stylistic choices, like rewording ~every claim by Ben, Chloe and Alice, and then assuming that the transformed claims had the same truth value as the original claim.
I’m in a position very similar to Yarrow here: While I think Kat Woods has mostly convinced me that the most incendiary claims are likely false, and I’m sympathetic to the case for suing Ben and Habryka, there was dangerous red flags in the responses, so much so that I’d stop funding Nonlinear entirely, and I think it’s quite bad that Kat Woods responded the way they did.
To give some more context on this:
Let’s take the claim that it was discouraged to talk to friends or family (this was one of the things were I thought Nonlinear’s reply seemed more convincing than I would have expected, but still leaves me with uncertainty rather than settling everything for sure).
Nonlinear links to a screenshot with a policy named “Internal: policy for inviting guests.” The policy mentions “friends and family.” Nonlinear frame this as follows. Chloe was lying to claim that she was discouraged from talking to them, because the policy says otherwise. Because she was lying about it, we should discount what she says on other issues.
I’m thinking “maybe, but there are other possibilities.”
Firstly, I’m curious what the following phrase is about “the above roughly reflects the priority list as well.” Is “the priority list” a separate thing? Or is this talking about a ranking of priorities from top to bottom? Even if there’s no intended ranking from top to bottom, I feel like it’s not outlandish to come away with the impression that “friends and family” was maybe added somewhat grudgingly rather than enthusiastically, since another section in the screenshot justifies having visitors with “it can have an extremely high impact to have different people join us” and compares it to a “constant EAG.” (These things apply a lot less to family or EA-disinterested friends.)
Also, sometimes written policies don’t capture implicit sentiments. It’s possible for a policy to say “it’s okay/encouraged to do x” while simultaneously there’s some social pressure in the group to do very little x.
The discussion about the screenshot made it seem like the screenshot settles everything.
Instead, I’d have thought it’s more balanced to say something like “this screenshot at the very least shows that it wasn’t our official policy to discourage these things, so Chloe/Alice should have mentioned this for fairness reasons.”
This on its own, maybe. But Chloe’s boyfriend was invited to travel with us for 2 of the 5 months she was with us, and we were about to invite him to travel with us indefinitely, free of charge. That’s a hard to fake signal that she was more than welcome to invite friends and family.
We also show text messages of us encouraging them to invite people over. We even have text messages showing me encouraging Chloe to see her boyfriend sooner and her saying no. Alice invited multiple friends to travel with us. When Chloe quit one of her friends was visiting us for 2-4 weeks (can’t quite remember). To be fair, that friend we invited. But if she’d invited him, we would have been thrilled.
Their portrayal of us saying that only me and Emerson could invite people to travel with us is clearly established to be false.
On this point, your reply seems very compelling to me. ((Though it’s at least imaginable that Chloe would point out ways in which this is misleading – e.g., maybe her bf had “EA potential” or got along well with Emerson or you and some other friends of hers didn’t, and maybe someone made comments about her other friends. Idk.))
I think it’s important to not hold people to unreasonable standards when they try to present a lot of evidence. If this (the invites allowed list) is one of only few instances where it’s overstated how important a particular piece of evidence is, then that’s still totally compatible with a high degree of objectivity!
I overall felt like there were some other places where I was uncertain how much to update, while your wording “wanted” me to make a very big update. But I also think these things can be hard to judge.