Personally, I donāt see the bet itself as something that shouldnāt have happened. I acknowledge that others could have the perspective Chi had, and can see why they would. But didnāt feel that way myself, and I personally think that downside is outweighed by the upside of it being good for the communityās epistemicsāand this is not just for Justin and Sean, but also for people reading the comments, so that they can come to more informed views based on the views the bettersā take and how strongly they hold them. (Therefore, thereās value in it being public, I thinkāI also therefore would personally suggest the comments shouldnāt be deleted, but itās up to Sean.)
But I did feel really weird reading āPleasure doing business Justin!ā. I didnāt really feel uncomfortable with the rest of the upbeat tone Sean notes, but perhaps that shouldāve been toned down too. That tone isnāt necessary for the benefits of the betāit could be civil and polite but also neutral or sombreāand could create reputational issues for EA. (Plus itās probably just good to have more respectful/ātaking-things-seriously norms in cases like these, without having to always calculate the consequences of such norms.)
Also, I feel uncomfortable with someone having downvoted Chiās comment, given that it seemed to have a quite reasonable tone and to be sharing input/āa suggestion/āa recommendation. It wasnāt cutting or personal or damning. It seemed to me more like explaining Chiās view than persuading, so I think we should be somewhat wary of downvoting such things, even when we disagree, so we donāt fall into something like groupthink. (Iāve strong upvoted for reasons of balance, even though I feel unsure about Chiās actual recommendations.)
I agree that Chiās comment is very reasonable (and upvoted for that reason).
Personally, I think editing for tone would be a reasonable compromise, but I am glad people are starting to think more about the EA Forum as a publicly searchable space.
Re: Michael & Khortonās points, (1) Michael fully agreed, casual figure of speech that Iāve now deleted. I apologise. (2) Iāve done some further editing for tone but would be grateful if others had further suggestions.
I also agree re: Chiās commentāIāve already remarked that I think the point was valid, but I would add that I found it to be respectful and considerate in how it made its point (as one of the people it was directed towards).
Itās been useful for me to reflect on. I think a combination of two things for me: one is some inherent personal discomfort/āconcern about causing offence by effectively saying āI think youāre wrong and Iām willing to bet youāre wrongā, which I think I unintentionally counteracted with (possibly excessive) levity. The second is how quickly the disconnect can happen from (initial discussion of very serious topic) to (checking in on forum several days later to quickly respond to some math). Both are things I will be more careful about going forward. Lastly, I may have been spending too much time around risk folk, for whom certain discussions become so standard that one forgets how they can come across.
I guess thereās an interesting argument here for making casual gambling illegalābased on this thread, it seems like āBets are serious & somber business, not for frivolous things like horse racesā could be a really high value meme to spread.
Personally, I donāt see the bet itself as something that shouldnāt have happened. I acknowledge that others could have the perspective Chi had, and can see why they would. But didnāt feel that way myself, and I personally think that downside is outweighed by the upside of it being good for the communityās epistemicsāand this is not just for Justin and Sean, but also for people reading the comments, so that they can come to more informed views based on the views the bettersā take and how strongly they hold them. (Therefore, thereās value in it being public, I thinkāI also therefore would personally suggest the comments shouldnāt be deleted, but itās up to Sean.)
But I did feel really weird reading āPleasure doing business Justin!ā. I didnāt really feel uncomfortable with the rest of the upbeat tone Sean notes, but perhaps that shouldāve been toned down too. That tone isnāt necessary for the benefits of the betāit could be civil and polite but also neutral or sombreāand could create reputational issues for EA. (Plus itās probably just good to have more respectful/ātaking-things-seriously norms in cases like these, without having to always calculate the consequences of such norms.)
Also, I feel uncomfortable with someone having downvoted Chiās comment, given that it seemed to have a quite reasonable tone and to be sharing input/āa suggestion/āa recommendation. It wasnāt cutting or personal or damning. It seemed to me more like explaining Chiās view than persuading, so I think we should be somewhat wary of downvoting such things, even when we disagree, so we donāt fall into something like groupthink. (Iāve strong upvoted for reasons of balance, even though I feel unsure about Chiās actual recommendations.)
I agree that Chiās comment is very reasonable (and upvoted for that reason). Personally, I think editing for tone would be a reasonable compromise, but I am glad people are starting to think more about the EA Forum as a publicly searchable space.
Re: Michael & Khortonās points, (1) Michael fully agreed, casual figure of speech that Iāve now deleted. I apologise. (2) Iāve done some further editing for tone but would be grateful if others had further suggestions.
I also agree re: Chiās commentāIāve already remarked that I think the point was valid, but I would add that I found it to be respectful and considerate in how it made its point (as one of the people it was directed towards).
Itās been useful for me to reflect on. I think a combination of two things for me: one is some inherent personal discomfort/āconcern about causing offence by effectively saying āI think youāre wrong and Iām willing to bet youāre wrongā, which I think I unintentionally counteracted with (possibly excessive) levity. The second is how quickly the disconnect can happen from (initial discussion of very serious topic) to (checking in on forum several days later to quickly respond to some math). Both are things I will be more careful about going forward. Lastly, I may have been spending too much time around risk folk, for whom certain discussions become so standard that one forgets how they can come across.
Fwiw, the āpleasure doing businessā line was the only part of your tone that struck me as off when I read the thread.
I guess thereās an interesting argument here for making casual gambling illegalābased on this thread, it seems like āBets are serious & somber business, not for frivolous things like horse racesā could be a really high value meme to spread.