Organizations or people that did the type of thing you’re suggesting wouldn’t get an award. Obviously. The award is for doing good things, not hiding bad ones.
And if someone misunderstood this, and for whatever reason nominated such behavior, I would expect that anyone on the prize committee would, if anything, highlight the misbehavior within the EA community, and the organization or person in question would have much more difficulty getting funded, hired, or supported in the future.
A political figure lies about Sam’s accomplishment to manipulate people into accepting it.
Greg hides his involvement with a controversial field from the public or the elected officials and avoids scrutiny.
An organisation hides the involvement of an unwanted person from the public (who are potential donors) and from partners. Max claims he is reformed, but how do the prize judges know? Is it really their job to decide? (This is actually relevant to ongoing EA-adjacent research.)
Again it is quite unclear why disclosing Steve’s involvement would undermine the project—but if it does, why does this justify hiding it? Maybe it’s really bad to accept Steve’s contributions—again, is it for you to judge?
Edit: there are lots of downvotes. Would someone care to explain why this is a “bad comment” or what you disagree with?
I think that you’re assuming the judges will give awards to bad / damaging actions. Obviously, the context will matter, and given who the judges are, I expect that they will be first, not interested in giving out a prize for bad things, and second, cognizant of the potential reputational and other issues which might be involved in giving out a prize.
And regarding “is it for you to judge?” I think the answer is yes—community leaders, including those who are judges for the prizes, are absolutely the people who would be making decisions about the types of things that the community should recognize and honor, in consultation with others who might be needed in order to investigate or determine what is reasonable. Hence the structure of the prize.
I think that you’re assuming the judges will give awards to bad / damaging actions.
I’m assuming the judges will give prizes to actions that fit the outline of the examples in the post. If 80% of them seem bad/damaging, how should I trust that the judges will only issue prizes based on the singular better example?
You’re still stridently assuming that the judges will fail to use their best judgement, or that you think they are too dumb to realize that obvious failure modes are bad...
Organizations or people that did the type of thing you’re suggesting wouldn’t get an award. Obviously. The award is for doing good things, not hiding bad ones.
And if someone misunderstood this, and for whatever reason nominated such behavior, I would expect that anyone on the prize committee would, if anything, highlight the misbehavior within the EA community, and the organization or person in question would have much more difficulty getting funded, hired, or supported in the future.
Most of the examples you gave seem bad:
A political figure lies about Sam’s accomplishment to manipulate people into accepting it.
Greg hides his involvement with a controversial field from the public or the elected officials and avoids scrutiny.
An organisation hides the involvement of an unwanted person from the public (who are potential donors) and from partners. Max claims he is reformed, but how do the prize judges know? Is it really their job to decide? (This is actually relevant to ongoing EA-adjacent research.)
Again it is quite unclear why disclosing Steve’s involvement would undermine the project—but if it does, why does this justify hiding it? Maybe it’s really bad to accept Steve’s contributions—again, is it for you to judge?
Edit: there are lots of downvotes. Would someone care to explain why this is a “bad comment” or what you disagree with?
I think that you’re assuming the judges will give awards to bad / damaging actions. Obviously, the context will matter, and given who the judges are, I expect that they will be first, not interested in giving out a prize for bad things, and second, cognizant of the potential reputational and other issues which might be involved in giving out a prize.
And regarding “is it for you to judge?” I think the answer is yes—community leaders, including those who are judges for the prizes, are absolutely the people who would be making decisions about the types of things that the community should recognize and honor, in consultation with others who might be needed in order to investigate or determine what is reasonable. Hence the structure of the prize.
I’m assuming the judges will give prizes to actions that fit the outline of the examples in the post. If 80% of them seem bad/damaging, how should I trust that the judges will only issue prizes based on the singular better example?
You’re still stridently assuming that the judges will fail to use their best judgement, or that you think they are too dumb to realize that obvious failure modes are bad...