The EA forum is complex and probably unique. I think there are several important features:
It’s performative, as EA has various audiences to whom maintaining tone and norms is important. It’s also part work forum, like a company intranet. Every funder and collaborator can see everything you ever write, so breaking norms, such as being negative or confrontational, is costly (while certain actions may be risky or have no personal reward).
The forum is a way to communicate and try to find the truth about important causes or decisions. However it does this in a funky way—you can confront ideas with extreme aggression (and get authority for doing so), yet you might not even be able to indirectly suggest that there are issues about someone’s relevant credentials or ability (even when they use these explicitly or you suspect they have arrogated themselves).
The forum has strikingly different reactions based on insider or outsider status: content from newcomers and many critics are treated well, even when it’s pretty bad, or they make direct personal attacks. At the same time, people who occupy meta positions, places of authority regularly encounter hostility. This is probably a feature, not a defect. However, it’s possible someone could straddle the space between these roles, and shield themselves by the norms of one, while using the other to advance their goals.
There’s more prosaic issues. Like other forums, it isn’t always representative and can acquire constituencies with their own views. Issues or grievances (that are very real or neglected) can be hard to explain or confront, and exist for long periods of time without challenge or solution.
There’s some other features that are relevant, but this is too long already.
If you thought people were exploiting these features in some way, I guess you could write a short form post or something directly denouncing people personally. But that seems hard and bad for lots of reasons. It also doesn’t give you a chance to collect more information.
If for some reason, you had a pretty deep model where you thought someone was doing this, you might write a comment that isn’t that confrontational, and whose consequent reaction gives more information to you.
Note:
Note that a compelling reason to do this is if you think you were involved (or held back in some earlier process) and might bear some responsibility, especially if the underlying issue involves entrenchment.
You might be worried about making a mistake and the comment having various negative externalities. If in the past you interrogated the reactions of the EA forum to negative comments, you might have information that suggests these externalities are small.
This question seems like it should be a private message? I don’t see how it’s relevant to the post you’re replying to.
The EA forum is complex and probably unique. I think there are several important features:
It’s performative, as EA has various audiences to whom maintaining tone and norms is important. It’s also part work forum, like a company intranet. Every funder and collaborator can see everything you ever write, so breaking norms, such as being negative or confrontational, is costly (while certain actions may be risky or have no personal reward).
The forum is a way to communicate and try to find the truth about important causes or decisions. However it does this in a funky way—you can confront ideas with extreme aggression (and get authority for doing so), yet you might not even be able to indirectly suggest that there are issues about someone’s relevant credentials or ability (even when they use these explicitly or you suspect they have arrogated themselves).
The forum has strikingly different reactions based on insider or outsider status: content from newcomers and many critics are treated well, even when it’s pretty bad, or they make direct personal attacks. At the same time, people who occupy meta positions, places of authority regularly encounter hostility. This is probably a feature, not a defect. However, it’s possible someone could straddle the space between these roles, and shield themselves by the norms of one, while using the other to advance their goals.
There’s more prosaic issues. Like other forums, it isn’t always representative and can acquire constituencies with their own views. Issues or grievances (that are very real or neglected) can be hard to explain or confront, and exist for long periods of time without challenge or solution.
There’s some other features that are relevant, but this is too long already.
If you thought people were exploiting these features in some way, I guess you could write a short form post or something directly denouncing people personally. But that seems hard and bad for lots of reasons. It also doesn’t give you a chance to collect more information.
If for some reason, you had a pretty deep model where you thought someone was doing this, you might write a comment that isn’t that confrontational, and whose consequent reaction gives more information to you.
Note:
Note that a compelling reason to do this is if you think you were involved (or held back in some earlier process) and might bear some responsibility, especially if the underlying issue involves entrenchment.
You might be worried about making a mistake and the comment having various negative externalities. If in the past you interrogated the reactions of the EA forum to negative comments, you might have information that suggests these externalities are small.