The _moderator comment_ develops a norm/enforces a novel rule in a way that lacks clarity and clashes with other established norms.
It should be permitted to make strong allegations on the EA forum
The class of allegations should include say, severe criminality and sexual assault (at least for funded EAs)
EA discourse was supposed to be a strong filter for truth/an environment for effectiveness to rise to the top
You are reaching/editing into public discourse with little clarity/purpose
If you want to forbid Mohn’s demand, at least it should be explained better, ideally downstream of some broad, clear principle—not merely because they are taking advantage of a mechanic
Forum banning and other mechanics/design should take into account the external knowledge induced by the mechanics/design
This includes downstream information implied by moderator decisions like banning.
You are responsible for what the banning system or the forum mechanics imply and shouldn’t rely on reaching into the world and editing public spaces for forum aims
To some degree, “public spaces” includes the EA forum, because the EA forum is a monopoly and that carries obligations
Ideally, the harm/issue here should be self-limiting and ideally the forum should be allowed express itself
E.g., if the accused XXXX doesn’t care, ignores Mohn, and others view the demand to present themselves as silly or unreasonable, Mohn’s demand has no power
We should prefer these norms and their decisions to accurately reflect the substance/seriousness/truth of the accusation (and not when a moderator expresses their dislike of how someone is using forum mechanics)
Suggestions:
What you should do is make clear this is your rumination/thought or a future norm to be enforced
E.g. Oliver Habryka’s style in many of his comments, which does not use moderator authority explicitly
You have plenty of soft power in doing so
If you think there is a stronger reason to forbid Mohn’s accusation, and you should use moderator power, you should communicate the reason
Also:
I think if you think an innocent person is seriously wronged and the situation is serious, you can just exonerate them: “Note that XXX actually wasn’t banned for this, I normally don’t say this, but this is a one-time exception because <reason YYYY>”
(I support strong moderation, including using broad, even arbitrary seeming action, I’m critiquing the comment based on the arguments above, not because it’s not in a rule book.)
I’m mostly annoyed by the downvote because it makes the content invisible—I don’t mind losing a lot of “karma” or being proven wrong or disagreed with.
As an aside, I thought you, Richard Mohn, were one of the most thoughtful, diligent people on the forum. I thought your post was great. Maybe it was clunky, but in a way I think I understand and emphasize with—the way a busy, technically competent person would produce a forum post. There was a lot of substance to it. You were also impressively magnanimous about the abusive action taken against you.
The vibe is sort of like a Michael Aird (who also commented), but with a different style.
Thanks! I appreciate your comment. (Not so sure about the magnanimity. I spent a lot of time thinking about how to get my revenge.) But Harold Godsoe gave me some good advice.)
This is the wrong call as communicated.
The _moderator comment_ develops a norm/enforces a novel rule in a way that lacks clarity and clashes with other established norms.
It should be permitted to make strong allegations on the EA forum
The class of allegations should include say, severe criminality and sexual assault (at least for funded EAs)
EA discourse was supposed to be a strong filter for truth/an environment for effectiveness to rise to the top
You are reaching/editing into public discourse with little clarity/purpose
If you want to forbid Mohn’s demand, at least it should be explained better, ideally downstream of some broad, clear principle—not merely because they are taking advantage of a mechanic
Forum banning and other mechanics/design should take into account the external knowledge induced by the mechanics/design
This includes downstream information implied by moderator decisions like banning.
You are responsible for what the banning system or the forum mechanics imply and shouldn’t rely on reaching into the world and editing public spaces for forum aims
To some degree, “public spaces” includes the EA forum, because the EA forum is a monopoly and that carries obligations
Ideally, the harm/issue here should be self-limiting and ideally the forum should be allowed express itself
E.g., if the accused XXXX doesn’t care, ignores Mohn, and others view the demand to present themselves as silly or unreasonable, Mohn’s demand has no power
We should prefer these norms and their decisions to accurately reflect the substance/seriousness/truth of the accusation (and not when a moderator expresses their dislike of how someone is using forum mechanics)
Suggestions:
What you should do is make clear this is your rumination/thought or a future norm to be enforced
E.g. Oliver Habryka’s style in many of his comments, which does not use moderator authority explicitly
You have plenty of soft power in doing so
If you think there is a stronger reason to forbid Mohn’s accusation, and you should use moderator power, you should communicate the reason
Also:
I think if you think an innocent person is seriously wronged and the situation is serious, you can just exonerate them: “Note that XXX actually wasn’t banned for this, I normally don’t say this, but this is a one-time exception because <reason YYYY>”
(I support strong moderation, including using broad, even arbitrary seeming action, I’m critiquing the comment based on the arguments above, not because it’s not in a rule book.)
Why would someone downvote this detailed comment without explanation?
It happens often on this forum. 🤷♂️ (This is meant seriously, not as a reference to the mass-downvoting my article experienced.)
I’m mostly annoyed by the downvote because it makes the content invisible—I don’t mind losing a lot of “karma” or being proven wrong or disagreed with.
As an aside, I thought you, Richard Mohn, were one of the most thoughtful, diligent people on the forum. I thought your post was great. Maybe it was clunky, but in a way I think I understand and emphasize with—the way a busy, technically competent person would produce a forum post. There was a lot of substance to it. You were also impressively magnanimous about the abusive action taken against you.
The vibe is sort of like a Michael Aird (who also commented), but with a different style.
Thanks! I appreciate your comment. (Not so sure about the magnanimity. I spent a lot of time thinking about how to get my revenge.) But Harold Godsoe gave me some good advice.)