Peter Layman has violated Forum norms in a variety of ways since joining. We are banning Peter for a month with a warning; if their engagement with the Forum continues to violate norms after the ban, we will ban them for a longer period of time.
Here’s a list of some norm violations (this list might not be exhaustive):
This recent comment violates Forum norms: “Ripping off all those innocent Ponzi scheme victims was totally worth it for the future trillions of people SBF will be able to pay for… I’m sorry, I’m hearing that he’s lost his entire net worth.” What a great day for humanity.
It’s rude, snarky, and ungenerous. It would merit a strong warning by itself.
This post also violates our norms: “The richest and most prominent Effective Altruism/Longtermism exponent has lit $44,000,000,000 on fire to own his political enemies online.” It’s unnecessarily hostile and ungenerous, and, while phrased as a question, seems to be an attempt to articulate the poster’s opinions on EA — there’s no way to read “Will this person still be welcomed to the EA ranks after conducting perhaps the biggest single waste of private capital in human history?” without hearing a passive-aggressive challenge. In addition, one of Peter Layman’s comments on this post seems like an attempt to trip up the other user in the thread rather than an attempt at good-faith communication (it doesn’t address the central point of discussion, but rather seems to pop up with a separate issue Peter is interested in).
A fair number of Peter’s posts are click-baity linkposts (just because something is a link-post doesn’t mean it’s ok for the title of the post to be click-baity, or for the contents of the post on the Forum to violate other norms):
I guess the rules should be the same for everyone, but I’m kind of worried a ban in this case makes us look thin-skinned and unable to take criticism. (For what it’s worth I think that the titles of the first 2 of the link posts are fine, albeit strongly phrased.)
Peter Layman has violated Forum norms in a variety of ways since joining. We are banning Peter for a month with a warning; if their engagement with the Forum continues to violate norms after the ban, we will ban them for a longer period of time.
Here’s a list of some norm violations (this list might not be exhaustive):
This recent comment violates Forum norms: “Ripping off all those innocent Ponzi scheme victims was totally worth it for the future trillions of people SBF will be able to pay for… I’m sorry, I’m hearing that he’s lost his entire net worth.” What a great day for humanity.
It’s rude, snarky, and ungenerous. It would merit a strong warning by itself.
This post also violates our norms: “The richest and most prominent Effective Altruism/Longtermism exponent has lit $44,000,000,000 on fire to own his political enemies online.” It’s unnecessarily hostile and ungenerous, and, while phrased as a question, seems to be an attempt to articulate the poster’s opinions on EA — there’s no way to read “Will this person still be welcomed to the EA ranks after conducting perhaps the biggest single waste of private capital in human history?” without hearing a passive-aggressive challenge. In addition, one of Peter Layman’s comments on this post seems like an attempt to trip up the other user in the thread rather than an attempt at good-faith communication (it doesn’t address the central point of discussion, but rather seems to pop up with a separate issue Peter is interested in).
A fair number of Peter’s posts are click-baity linkposts (just because something is a link-post doesn’t mean it’s ok for the title of the post to be click-baity, or for the contents of the post on the Forum to violate other norms):
Thread on LT/ut’s preference for billions of imminent deaths
The Enigma of Peter Thiel | There Is No Enigma — He’s a Fascist
Tales from the Thrifts: From savings-and-loan crooks to crypto hucksters
I guess the rules should be the same for everyone, but I’m kind of worried a ban in this case makes us look thin-skinned and unable to take criticism. (For what it’s worth I think that the titles of the first 2 of the link posts are fine, albeit strongly phrased.)