If EA is trying to do the most good, letting people like Ives post their misinformed stuff here seems like a clear mistake.
Disagree because it is at −36.
Happy to consider your points on the merits if you have an example of an objectionable post with positive upvotes.
That said: part of me feels that Effective Altruism shouldn’t be afraid of controversial discussion, whilst another part of me wants to shift it to Less Wrong. I suppose I’d have to have a concrete example in front of me to figure out how to balance these views.
Which (if any) of titotal’s six numbered points only apply and/or have force if the post’s net karma is positive, as Mr. Parr’s have been at certain points in time?
Disagree because it is at −36.
Happy to consider your points on the merits if you have an example of an objectionable post with positive upvotes.
That said: part of me feels that Effective Altruism shouldn’t be afraid of controversial discussion, whilst another part of me wants to shift it to Less Wrong. I suppose I’d have to have a concrete example in front of me to figure out how to balance these views.
Which (if any) of titotal’s six numbered points only apply and/or have force if the post’s net karma is positive, as Mr. Parr’s have been at certain points in time?