Well, thanks for that. Admittedly, the downvotes seemed like good evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, I also couldn’t really give you my real name even if I wanted to, because the name of this account shares the name of my online persona elsewhere and I place a very high premium on anonymity. If I had thought to give it a different name, then I’d probably just PM you my real name. But I didn’t think that far ahead.
Anyway, whatever else may be, I’m sorry that I came in so hot. Sometimes I just see something that really sets me off and I consequently approach things too aggressively for my own (and others’) good.
Many of the comments in this comment chain, including the original narrative I wrote, which I view as closer to reality (as opposed to the implicit, difficult, narrative I see in the OP, which seems highly motivated and for which I find evidence that it is contradicted in the subsequent comments by the OP) has been visited by likely a single person, who has made strong downvotes and strong upvotes, of magnitude 9.
So probably a single person has come in and used a strong upvote or downvote of magnitude 9.
While I am totally petty and vain, I don’t usually comment on upvotes or downvotes, because it seems sort of unseemly (unless it is hilarious to do so).
In this case, because of the way strong upvotes are designed, there appears to be literally only 4 accounts who could have this ability, and their judgement is well respected.
So I address you directly: If you have information about this, especially object level information about the underlying situation relative to my original narrative, it would be great to discuss.
The underlying motivation is that truth is a thing, and in some sense having the recent commentor come in and stir this up, was useful.
In an even deeper sense, as we all agree, EA isn’t a social club for people who got here first. EA doesn’t belong to you or me, or even a large subset of the original founders (to be clear, for all intents and purposes, all reasonable paths will include their leadership and guidance for a long time).
Importantly, I think some good operationalizations of the above perspective, combined with awareness of all the possible instantiations of EA, and the composition of people and attitudes, would rationalize a different tone and culture than exists.
So, RE: “I would be more worried about making comments of the kind that you produced above under my real name.” I think could be exactly, perfectly, the opposite of what is true, yet is one of the comments you strong upvoted.
To be even more direct I suspect, but I am unsure, that the culture of discussion in EA has accumulated defects that are costly to effectiveness and truth (under the direct tenure of one of the four people who could have voted +/-9 by the way).
So the most important topic here might not be about the OP at all, which I view as just one instance of an ongoing issue—in a deep sense, it was really about the very person who came in and strong voted!
I’m not sure you see this (or that I see this fully either).
From the very beginning, I specifically constructed this account and persona to interrogate whether this is true, or something.
Circling back to the original topic. The above perspective, the related hysteresis, the consequent effects, implies that the existence of my narrative in this thread, or myself, should be challenged or removed if it’s wrong.
But I can’t really elaborate on my narrative. I can’t defend myself, because it slags the OP, which isn’t appropriate and opens wounds, which is unfair and harmful to everyone involved (but I sort of hoped the new commentor was the OP or a friend, which would have waived this and that’s why I wanted their identity).
But you, the strong downvoter/upvoter, +9 dude, this is a really promising line of discussion. So come and reply?
Well, thanks for that. Admittedly, the downvotes seemed like good evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, I also couldn’t really give you my real name even if I wanted to, because the name of this account shares the name of my online persona elsewhere and I place a very high premium on anonymity. If I had thought to give it a different name, then I’d probably just PM you my real name. But I didn’t think that far ahead.
Anyway, whatever else may be, I’m sorry that I came in so hot. Sometimes I just see something that really sets me off and I consequently approach things too aggressively for my own (and others’) good.
Many of the comments in this comment chain, including the original narrative I wrote, which I view as closer to reality (as opposed to the implicit, difficult, narrative I see in the OP, which seems highly motivated and for which I find evidence that it is contradicted in the subsequent comments by the OP) has been visited by likely a single person, who has made strong downvotes and strong upvotes, of magnitude 9.
So probably a single person has come in and used a strong upvote or downvote of magnitude 9.
While I am totally petty and vain, I don’t usually comment on upvotes or downvotes, because it seems sort of unseemly (unless it is hilarious to do so).
In this case, because of the way strong upvotes are designed, there appears to be literally only 4 accounts who could have this ability, and their judgement is well respected.
So I address you directly: If you have information about this, especially object level information about the underlying situation relative to my original narrative, it would be great to discuss.
The underlying motivation is that truth is a thing, and in some sense having the recent commentor come in and stir this up, was useful.
In an even deeper sense, as we all agree, EA isn’t a social club for people who got here first. EA doesn’t belong to you or me, or even a large subset of the original founders (to be clear, for all intents and purposes, all reasonable paths will include their leadership and guidance for a long time).
Importantly, I think some good operationalizations of the above perspective, combined with awareness of all the possible instantiations of EA, and the composition of people and attitudes, would rationalize a different tone and culture than exists.
So, RE: “I would be more worried about making comments of the kind that you produced above under my real name.” I think could be exactly, perfectly, the opposite of what is true, yet is one of the comments you strong upvoted.
To be even more direct I suspect, but I am unsure, that the culture of discussion in EA has accumulated defects that are costly to effectiveness and truth (under the direct tenure of one of the four people who could have voted +/-9 by the way).
So the most important topic here might not be about the OP at all, which I view as just one instance of an ongoing issue—in a deep sense, it was really about the very person who came in and strong voted!
I’m not sure you see this (or that I see this fully either).
From the very beginning, I specifically constructed this account and persona to interrogate whether this is true, or something.
Circling back to the original topic. The above perspective, the related hysteresis, the consequent effects, implies that the existence of my narrative in this thread, or myself, should be challenged or removed if it’s wrong.
But I can’t really elaborate on my narrative. I can’t defend myself, because it slags the OP, which isn’t appropriate and opens wounds, which is unfair and harmful to everyone involved (but I sort of hoped the new commentor was the OP or a friend, which would have waived this and that’s why I wanted their identity).
But you, the strong downvoter/upvoter, +9 dude, this is a really promising line of discussion. So come and reply?