Some reasons why your comment may have been downvoted:
Jan Kulveit pointed out that “[m]ultiple claims in this post are misleading, incomplete or false”. Although Jan didn’t elaborate, his familiarity with the EA Czech scene may justify the belief that the post did in fact contain claims that are misleading, incomplete or false, and warrant a vote associated with that belief. (You don’t need to wait for the relevant evidence to be released if you expect to be persuaded by this evidence once it is released.)
You posted both a comment and a top-level post with virtually the same information. Some people may consider this to be excessive.
The top-level post makes an assertion (“ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau”) but provides hardly any reason in support of it. You do not engage with the extensive discussion in recent weeks on what recipients of FTX funds should do with the money they received (e.g.), which uncovered reasonable considerations both for and against returning these funds. Nor do you consider Owen Cotton-Barratt’s justification for the Wytham Abbey purchase, which may also justify the decision to purchase this other property. (I don’t personally have a strong opinion either way, FWIW.)
Jan Kulveit has yet to point out anything, he has merely claimed that. Perhaps he posts evidence that I made false claims in the future, but for now there is no reason to downvote. Also the heavy downvotes started long before Jan made his comment.
The comment was hidden since it was replying to a thread with negative karma, many comments turn into posts and I found this information alarming enough to warrant it’s own post.
I did provide reasons to defend it and when those discussion took place we didn’t yet have a confession by SBF so it was still possible that this was all a misunderstanding, furthermore Wytham Abbey wasn’t purchased by FTX funds, this chateau is.
EDIT: Also Jan’s comment gets 10 karma while he has yet to cite anything, while my citation filled comment doesn’t just get disagreement karma, it get’s actual negative karma. This is not an impartial evaluation of the evidence, this is preemptively voting on what people wish to be true.
Some reasons why your comment may have been downvoted:
Jan Kulveit pointed out that “[m]ultiple claims in this post are misleading, incomplete or false”. Although Jan didn’t elaborate, his familiarity with the EA Czech scene may justify the belief that the post did in fact contain claims that are misleading, incomplete or false, and warrant a vote associated with that belief. (You don’t need to wait for the relevant evidence to be released if you expect to be persuaded by this evidence once it is released.)
You posted both a comment and a top-level post with virtually the same information. Some people may consider this to be excessive.
The top-level post makes an assertion (“ESPR should return the FTX-funded chateau”) but provides hardly any reason in support of it. You do not engage with the extensive discussion in recent weeks on what recipients of FTX funds should do with the money they received (e.g.), which uncovered reasonable considerations both for and against returning these funds. Nor do you consider Owen Cotton-Barratt’s justification for the Wytham Abbey purchase, which may also justify the decision to purchase this other property. (I don’t personally have a strong opinion either way, FWIW.)
Jan Kulveit has yet to point out anything, he has merely claimed that. Perhaps he posts evidence that I made false claims in the future, but for now there is no reason to downvote. Also the heavy downvotes started long before Jan made his comment.
The comment was hidden since it was replying to a thread with negative karma, many comments turn into posts and I found this information alarming enough to warrant it’s own post.
I did provide reasons to defend it and when those discussion took place we didn’t yet have a confession by SBF so it was still possible that this was all a misunderstanding, furthermore Wytham Abbey wasn’t purchased by FTX funds, this chateau is.
EDIT: Also Jan’s comment gets 10 karma while he has yet to cite anything, while my citation filled comment doesn’t just get disagreement karma, it get’s actual negative karma. This is not an impartial evaluation of the evidence, this is preemptively voting on what people wish to be true.