We have strong reason to believe that Charles He used multiple new accounts to violate his earlier 6-month-long ban. We feel that this means that we cannot trust Charles He to follow this forum’s norms, and are banning him from the Forum for the next 10 years (until December 20, 2032).
We have already issued temporary suspensions to several suspected duplicate accounts, including one which violated norms about rudeness and was flagged to us by multiple users. We will be extending the bans for each of these accounts to mirror Charles’s 10-year ban, but are giving the users an opportunity to message us if we have made any of those temporary suspensions in error (and have already reached out to them). While we aren’t >99% certain about any single account, we’re around 99% that at least one of these is Charles He.
I find this reflects worse on the mod team than Charles. This is nowhere near the first time I’ve felt this way.
Fundamentally, it seems the mod team heavily prioritizes civility and following shallow norms above enabling important discourse. The post on forum norms says a picture of geese all flying in formation and in one direction is the desirable state of the forum; I disagree that this is desirable. Healthy conflict is necessary to sustain a healthy community. Conflict sometimes entails rudeness. Some rudeness here and there is not a big deal and does not need to be stamped out entirely. This also applies to the people who get banned for criticizing EA rudely, even when they’re criticizing EA for its role in one of the great frauds of modern history. Banning EA critics for minor reasons is a short-sighted move at best.
Banning Charles for 10 years (!!) for the relatively small crime of evading a previous ban is a seriously flawed idea. Some of his past actions like doxxing someone (without any malice I believe) are problematic and need to be addressed, but do not deserve a 10 year ban. Some of his past comments, especially farther in the past, have been frustrating and net-negative to me, but these negative actions are not unrelated to some of his positive traits, like his willingness to step out of EA norms and communicate clearly rather than like an EA bot. The variance of his comments has steadily decreased over time. Some of his comments are even moderator-like, such as when he warned EA forum users not to downvote a WSJ journalist who wasn’t breaking any rules. I note that the mod team did not step in there to encourage forum norms.
I also find it very troubling that the mod team has consistent and strong biases in how it enforces its norms and rules, such as not taking any meaningful action against an EA in-group member for repeated and harmful violations of norms but banning an EA critic for 20 years for probably relatively minor and harmless violations. I don’t believe Charles would have received a similar ban if he was an employee of a brand name EA org or was in the right social circles.
Finally, as Charles notes, there should be an appeals process for bans.
the relatively small crime of evading a previous ban
I don’t think repeatedly evading moderator bans is a “relatively small crime”. If Forum moderation is to mean anything at all, it has to be consistently enforced, and if someone just decides that moderation doesn’t apply to them, they shouldn’t be allowed to post or comment on the Forum.
Charles only got to his 6 month ban via a series of escalating minor bans, most of which I agreed with. I think he got a lot of slack in his behaviour because he sometimes provided significant value, but sometimes (with insufficient infrequency) behaved in ways that were seriously out of kilter with the goal of a healthy Forum.
I personally think the 10-year thing is kind of silly and he should just have been banned indefinitely at this point, then maybe have the ban reviewed in a little while. But it’s clear he’s been systematically violating Forum policies in a way that requires serious action.
The post on forum norms says a picture of geese all flying in formation and in one direction is the desirable state of the forum; I disagree that this is desirable.
Indefinite suspension with leave to seek reinstatement after a stated suitable period would have been far preferable to a 10-year ban. A tenner isn’t necessary to vindicate the moderators’ authority, and the relevant conduct doesn’t give the impression of someone for whom the passage of ten years’ time is necessary before there is a reasonable probability that would they have become a suitable participant during the suspension.
It makes a lot of difference to me that Charles’ behavior was consistently getting better. If someone consistently flouts norms without any improvement, at some point they should be indefinitely banned. This is not the case with Charles. He started off with really high variance and at this point has reached a pretty tolerable amount. He has clearly worked on his actions. The comments he posted while flouting the mods’ authority generally contributed to the conversation. There are other people who have done worse things without action from the mod team. Giving him a 10 year ban without appeal for this feels more motivated by another instance of the mod team asserting their authority and deciding not to deal with messiness someone is causing than a principled decision.
I think this is probably true. I still think that systematically evading a Forum ban is worse behaviour (by which I mean, more lengthy-ban-worthy) than any of his previous transgressions.
There are other people who have done worse things without action from the mod team.
I am not personally aware of any, and am sceptical of this claim. Open to being convinced, though.
Totally unrelated to the core of the matter, but do you intend to turn this into a frontpage post? I’m a bit inclined to say it’d be better for transparency, and to inform others about the bans, and deter potential violators.… but I’m not sure, maybe you have a reason for preferring the shortform (or you’ll publish periodical updates on the frontpage
In other forums and situations, there is a grace period where a user can comment after receiving a very long ban. I think this is a good feature that has several properties with long term value.
We have strong reason to believe that Charles He used multiple new accounts to violate his earlier 6-month-long ban.
These accounts are some of these accounts I created (but not all[1]):
Here are some highlights of some of the comments made by the accounts, within about a 30 day period.
Pointing out the hollowness of SBF’s business, which then produced a follow up comment, which was widely cited outside the forum, and may have helped generate a media narrative about SBF.
My alternate accounts were created successively, as they were successively banned. This was the only reason for subterfuge, which I view as distasteful.
I have information on the methods that the CEA team used to track my accounts (behavioral telemetry, my residential IP). This is not difficult to defeat. Not only did I not evade these methods, but I gave information about my identity several times (resulting in a ban each time). These choices, based on my distaste, is why the CEA team is “99% certain” (and at least, in a mechanical sense) why I have this 10 year ban.
We feel that this means that we cannot trust Charles He to follow this forum’s norms, and are banning him from the Forum for the next 10 years (until December 20, 2032).
I believe I am able to defend each of the actions on my previous bans individually (but never have before this). More importantly, I always viewed my behavior as a protest.
At this point, additional discussions are occurring by CEA[1], such as considering my ban from EAG and other EA events. By this, I’ll be joining blacklists of predators and deceivers.
As shown above, my use of alternate accounts did not promote or benefit myself in any way (even setting aside expected moderator action). Others in EA have used sock puppets to try to benefit their orgs, and gone on to be very successful.
Note that the moderator who executed the ban above, is not necessarily involved in any way in further action or policy mentioned in my comments. Four different CEA staff members have reached out or communicated to me in the last 30 days.
Moderation update:
We have strong reason to believe that Charles He used multiple new accounts to violate his earlier 6-month-long ban. We feel that this means that we cannot trust Charles He to follow this forum’s norms, and are banning him from the Forum for the next 10 years (until December 20, 2032).
We have already issued temporary suspensions to several suspected duplicate accounts, including one which violated norms about rudeness and was flagged to us by multiple users. We will be extending the bans for each of these accounts to mirror Charles’s 10-year ban, but are giving the users an opportunity to message us if we have made any of those temporary suspensions in error (and have already reached out to them). While we aren’t >99% certain about any single account, we’re around 99% that at least one of these is Charles He.
You can find more on our rules for pseudonymity and multiple accounts here. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please also feel free to reach out to us at forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org.
I find this reflects worse on the mod team than Charles. This is nowhere near the first time I’ve felt this way.
Fundamentally, it seems the mod team heavily prioritizes civility and following shallow norms above enabling important discourse. The post on forum norms says a picture of geese all flying in formation and in one direction is the desirable state of the forum; I disagree that this is desirable. Healthy conflict is necessary to sustain a healthy community. Conflict sometimes entails rudeness. Some rudeness here and there is not a big deal and does not need to be stamped out entirely. This also applies to the people who get banned for criticizing EA rudely, even when they’re criticizing EA for its role in one of the great frauds of modern history. Banning EA critics for minor reasons is a short-sighted move at best.
Banning Charles for 10 years (!!) for the relatively small crime of evading a previous ban is a seriously flawed idea. Some of his past actions like doxxing someone (without any malice I believe) are problematic and need to be addressed, but do not deserve a 10 year ban. Some of his past comments, especially farther in the past, have been frustrating and net-negative to me, but these negative actions are not unrelated to some of his positive traits, like his willingness to step out of EA norms and communicate clearly rather than like an EA bot. The variance of his comments has steadily decreased over time. Some of his comments are even moderator-like, such as when he warned EA forum users not to downvote a WSJ journalist who wasn’t breaking any rules. I note that the mod team did not step in there to encourage forum norms.
I also find it very troubling that the mod team has consistent and strong biases in how it enforces its norms and rules, such as not taking any meaningful action against an EA in-group member for repeated and harmful violations of norms but banning an EA critic for 20 years for probably relatively minor and harmless violations. I don’t believe Charles would have received a similar ban if he was an employee of a brand name EA org or was in the right social circles.
Finally, as Charles notes, there should be an appeals process for bans.
I don’t think repeatedly evading moderator bans is a “relatively small crime”. If Forum moderation is to mean anything at all, it has to be consistently enforced, and if someone just decides that moderation doesn’t apply to them, they shouldn’t be allowed to post or comment on the Forum.
Charles only got to his 6 month ban via a series of escalating minor bans, most of which I agreed with. I think he got a lot of slack in his behaviour because he sometimes provided significant value, but sometimes (with insufficient infrequency) behaved in ways that were seriously out of kilter with the goal of a healthy Forum.
I personally think the 10-year thing is kind of silly and he should just have been banned indefinitely at this point, then maybe have the ban reviewed in a little while. But it’s clear he’s been systematically violating Forum policies in a way that requires serious action.
I have no idea if this was intentional on the part of the moderators, but they aren’t all flying in the same direction. ;-)
Indefinite suspension with leave to seek reinstatement after a stated suitable period would have been far preferable to a 10-year ban. A tenner isn’t necessary to vindicate the moderators’ authority, and the relevant conduct doesn’t give the impression of someone for whom the passage of ten years’ time is necessary before there is a reasonable probability that would they have become a suitable participant during the suspension.
It makes a lot of difference to me that Charles’ behavior was consistently getting better. If someone consistently flouts norms without any improvement, at some point they should be indefinitely banned. This is not the case with Charles. He started off with really high variance and at this point has reached a pretty tolerable amount. He has clearly worked on his actions. The comments he posted while flouting the mods’ authority generally contributed to the conversation. There are other people who have done worse things without action from the mod team. Giving him a 10 year ban without appeal for this feels more motivated by another instance of the mod team asserting their authority and deciding not to deal with messiness someone is causing than a principled decision.
I think this is probably true. I still think that systematically evading a Forum ban is worse behaviour (by which I mean, more lengthy-ban-worthy) than any of his previous transgressions.
I am not personally aware of any, and am sceptical of this claim. Open to being convinced, though.
can you give some examples of this?
Various comments made by this user in multiple posts some time ago, some of which received warnings by mods but nothing beyond that.
Totally unrelated to the core of the matter, but do you intend to turn this into a frontpage post? I’m a bit inclined to say it’d be better for transparency, and to inform others about the bans, and deter potential violators.… but I’m not sure, maybe you have a reason for preferring the shortform (or you’ll publish periodical updates on the frontpage
In other forums and situations, there is a grace period where a user can comment after receiving a very long ban. I think this is a good feature that has several properties with long term value.
These accounts are some of these accounts I created (but not all[1]):
anonymous-for-unimpressive-reasons
making-this-account (this was originally “making this account feels almost as bad as pulling a Holden,” but was edited by the moderators afterwards).
to-be-stuck-inside-of-mobile
worldoptimization-was-based
Here are some highlights of some of the comments made by the accounts, within about a 30 day period.
Pointing out the hollowness of SBF’s business, which then produced a follow up comment, which was widely cited outside the forum, and may have helped generate a media narrative about SBF.
Jabbing at some dismal public statements of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s, and malign dynamics revealed by this episode. (Due to time limitations, I did not elaborate on the moral and intellectual defects of his justifications of keeping FTX funding, which to my amazement and disappointment, got hundreds of upvotes and no substantive dissension).
In a moderate way, exploring (blunting?) Oliver’s ill-advised (destructive?) strategy of radical disclosure.
A post making EAs aware of a major article revealing inside knowledge of SBF within EA, and this post was on a net, a release of tension in the EA community.
Trying to alleviate concerns about CEA’s solvency, and giving information about the nature of control and financing of CEA.
Defending Karnofsky and Moskovitz and making fun of them (this comment was the only comment Moskovitz has responded to in EA history so far).
Discouraging EA forum users from downvoting out of hand or creating blacklists/whitelists of journalists.
My alternate accounts were created successively, as they were successively banned. This was the only reason for subterfuge, which I view as distasteful.
I have information on the methods that the CEA team used to track my accounts (behavioral telemetry, my residential IP). This is not difficult to defeat. Not only did I not evade these methods, but I gave information about my identity several times (resulting in a ban each time). These choices, based on my distaste, is why the CEA team is “99% certain” (and at least, in a mechanical sense) why I have this 10 year ban.
Other accounts not listed, were created or used for purposes that I view as good, and are not relevant to the substance of the comment.
The only warning received on any of my alternate accounts was here:
This was a warning in response to my comment insulting another user. The user being insulted was Charles He.
I believe I am able to defend each of the actions on my previous bans individually (but never have before this). More importantly, I always viewed my behavior as a protest.
At this point, additional discussions are occurring by CEA[1], such as considering my ban from EAG and other EA events. By this, I’ll be joining blacklists of predators and deceivers.
As shown above, my use of alternate accounts did not promote or benefit myself in any way (even setting aside expected moderator action). Others in EA have used sock puppets to try to benefit their orgs, and gone on to be very successful.
Note that the moderator who executed the ban above, is not necessarily involved in any way in further action or policy mentioned in my comments. Four different CEA staff members have reached out or communicated to me in the last 30 days.