The ‘stylistic choices’ were themselves evidence of wrongdoing, and most of their evidence against claims both misstated the claims they claimed to be refuting and provided further (unwitting?) evidence of wrongdoing.
If you have time, can you provide some examples of what you saw as evidence of wrongdoing?
I feel that much of what I saw from my limited engagement was a valid refutation of the claims made. For instance, see the examples given in the post above.
There were responses to new claims and I saw those as being about making it clear that other claims, which had been made separately from Ben’s post, were also false.
I did see some cases where a refutation and claim didn’t exactly match, but I didn’t register that as wrongdoing (which might be due to bias or not realising the implications of the changes etc)
Also, are you sure it is fair to claim that most evidence they provided misstated the claims and provided evidence of wrong doing? Was it really most of the evidence, or just (potentially) some of it?
The most obviously questionable choice was, of course, their questionable usage of quotation marks, which is still only mentioned in the appendix. This introduced substantial confusion as to whether their responses to ostensible quotations in fact addressed the claims made in the original post, and this was exacerbated by their extensive editorialisation. I am not interested in legislating claims, but do notice their determination to muddy the waters, and find it very indicative that they believed this was their best path forward.
Another couple things that stood out.
This ‘illustration’ is quite a choice.
Why did images and captions like these feature so prominently in the post, including right near the beginning?
This is a document written over more than three months and reviewed by more than ten people. The stylistic and editorial choices are not accidents, or innocent oversights; at the very least, the specific accidents and oversights are suggestive of behavioural tendencies. Ultimately, they seem—in the comments on the original article, and in their later response—manipulative in ways that make the original allegations seem plausible to me. Whether they are in fact true is, of course, a separate matter.
If you have time, can you provide some examples of what you saw as evidence of wrongdoing?
I didn’t interpret any of these as evidence of the original wrongdoing, but these were the main things Kat did in her evidence thread that, in my opinion, muddled Nonlinear’s defense:
Lots of motte-and-bailey/strawmanning their critics, like claiming to refute an allegation but then providing evidence that they didn’t do some other, more egregious thing, or saying that the only way something bad could have come out of their actions was that they were “secretly evil”
Selectively engaging only with comments that made them look good, and avoiding responding to comments that looked more incriminating
Abuse of quotation marks, such that most of the time when they claimed someone else said something, the other person had not actually said that thing, but something else that sounded like it, modulo Kat’s interpretation.
There was also the section where they may have fabricated allegations against Ben Pace to make a point that anyone can make anyone else sound bad, though I thought the analogy did not quite work and some people thought was deranged. But I’m not sure if that part is substantiated or not, because she has avoided responding to questions about it.
Also, this was not in the forum thread, but Kat declaring victory on Facebook and saying she has changed everyone’s minds based on some questionable napkin math, while living in a bubble and engaging only with comments from people with whom she has shared the most flattering possible interpretation of events where people are witch hunting her for no reason.
The ‘stylistic choices’ were themselves evidence of wrongdoing, and most of their evidence against claims both misstated the claims they claimed to be refuting and provided further (unwitting?) evidence of wrongdoing.
If you have time, can you provide some examples of what you saw as evidence of wrongdoing?
I feel that much of what I saw from my limited engagement was a valid refutation of the claims made. For instance, see the examples given in the post above.
There were responses to new claims and I saw those as being about making it clear that other claims, which had been made separately from Ben’s post, were also false.
I did see some cases where a refutation and claim didn’t exactly match, but I didn’t register that as wrongdoing (which might be due to bias or not realising the implications of the changes etc)
Also, are you sure it is fair to claim that most evidence they provided misstated the claims and provided evidence of wrong doing? Was it really most of the evidence, or just (potentially) some of it?
The most obviously questionable choice was, of course, their questionable usage of quotation marks, which is still only mentioned in the appendix. This introduced substantial confusion as to whether their responses to ostensible quotations in fact addressed the claims made in the original post, and this was exacerbated by their extensive editorialisation. I am not interested in legislating claims, but do notice their determination to muddy the waters, and find it very indicative that they believed this was their best path forward.
Another couple things that stood out.
This ‘illustration’ is quite a choice.
Why did images and captions like these feature so prominently in the post, including right near the beginning?
This is a document written over more than three months and reviewed by more than ten people. The stylistic and editorial choices are not accidents, or innocent oversights; at the very least, the specific accidents and oversights are suggestive of behavioural tendencies. Ultimately, they seem—in the comments on the original article, and in their later response—manipulative in ways that make the original allegations seem plausible to me. Whether they are in fact true is, of course, a separate matter.
I didn’t interpret any of these as evidence of the original wrongdoing, but these were the main things Kat did in her evidence thread that, in my opinion, muddled Nonlinear’s defense:
Lots of motte-and-bailey/strawmanning their critics, like claiming to refute an allegation but then providing evidence that they didn’t do some other, more egregious thing, or saying that the only way something bad could have come out of their actions was that they were “secretly evil”
Selectively engaging only with comments that made them look good, and avoiding responding to comments that looked more incriminating
Abuse of quotation marks, such that most of the time when they claimed someone else said something, the other person had not actually said that thing, but something else that sounded like it, modulo Kat’s interpretation.
There was also the section where they may have fabricated allegations against Ben Pace to make a point that anyone can make anyone else sound bad, though I thought the analogy did not quite work and some people thought was deranged. But I’m not sure if that part is substantiated or not, because she has avoided responding to questions about it.
Also, this was not in the forum thread, but Kat declaring victory on Facebook and saying she has changed everyone’s minds based on some questionable napkin math, while living in a bubble and engaging only with comments from people with whom she has shared the most flattering possible interpretation of events where people are witch hunting her for no reason.