I’m curious if more can be said about the debate topic vetos. In particular, on reviewing the Politics post again, it says that “content will not be prohibited because of its political nature.”
Speaking personally, silent (i.e. where no rationale is given, though please let me know if I’ve missed one) vetos of topics the community decided were its preferred top choice of discussion feel potentially corrosive to EA’s discussion norms as a whole and maintaining the assumption of community-wide good faith.
As with most internal wranglings, there isn’t much that it’s rational for me to share here, so I probably can’t answer your further questions.
I’d like to make it very clear that me and Sarah think it is important that the EA movement has these conversations (and that we both favour transparency where possible). As of now, all I can say is that:
We may be able to run one of the top two voted debates later in the year. I’ll let you know if this becomes possible.
Just to add—this is frustrating to us too, and I am hopeful that we will be able to host this debate week later in the year. This was not an arbitrary decision—and I would prefer if it made sense for us to share more, but it does not.
I’m curious if more can be said about the debate topic vetos. In particular, on reviewing the Politics post again, it says that “content will not be prohibited because of its political nature.”
Speaking personally, silent (i.e. where no rationale is given, though please let me know if I’ve missed one) vetos of topics the community decided were its preferred top choice of discussion feel potentially corrosive to EA’s discussion norms as a whole and maintaining the assumption of community-wide good faith.
Thanks Andrew. Most of what I can say is this:
Just to add—this is frustrating to us too, and I am hopeful that we will be able to host this debate week later in the year. This was not an arbitrary decision—and I would prefer if it made sense for us to share more, but it does not.