While I mostly agree with you in general (e.g. Gleb Tsipursky getting too many second chances), Iām not quite sure what youāre trying to say in this case.
Do you think that the moderators were too charitable toward Phil? He was banned from the Forum for a year, and we tried to make it clear that his comments were rude and unacceptable. Before that thread, his comments were generally unremarkable, with the exception of one bitter exchange of the type that happens once in a while for many different users. And Iām loathe to issue Forum-based consequences for someoneās interpersonal behavior outside the Forum unless itās a truly exceptional circumstance.
*****
To the extent that someoneās problematic interpersonal behavior is being discussed on the Forum, I still believe we should try to actually show evidence. Many Forum readers are new to the community, or otherwise arenāt privy to drama within the field of longtermist research. If someone wants to warn the entire community that someone is behaving badly, the most effective warnings will include evidence. (Though as I said in my reply to Halsteadās reply, his comment was still clearly valuable overall.)
Imagine showing a random person from outside the EA community* (say, someone familiar with Twitter) this comment and this comment, as well as the karma scores. That person might conclude āHalstead was right and Phil was wrongā. They might also conclude āHalstead is a popular member of the ingroup and Phil is getting cancelled for wrongthinkā.
To many of us inside the community, itās obvious that the first conclusion is more accurate. But the second thing happens all the time, and a good way to prove that weāre not in the ācancelled for wrongthinkā universe is to have a strong norm that negative claims come with evidence.
*This isnāt to say that all moderation should necessarily pass the āwould make sense to a random Twitter userā test. But I think itās a useful test to run in this case.
Do you think that the moderators were too charitable toward Phil?
No, I didnāt mean to voice an opinion on that part. (And the moderation decision seemed reasonable to me.)
My comment was prompted by the concern that giving a warning to Halstead (for not providing more evidence) risks making it difficult for people to voice concerns in the future. My impression is that itās already difficult enough to voice negative opinions on othersā character. Specifically, I think thereās an effect where, if you voice a negative opinion and arenāt extremely skilled at playing the game of being highly balanced, polite and charitable (e.g., some other peopleās comments in the discussion strike me as almost superhumanly balanced and considerate), youāll offend the parts of the EA forum audience that implicitly consider being charitable to the accused a much more fundamental virtue than protecting other individuals (the potential victims of bad behavior) and the community at large (problematic individuals in my view tend to create a ādistortion fieldā around them that can have negative norm-eroding consequences in various ways ā though that was probably much more the case with other community drama than here, given that Phil wrote articles mostly at the periphery of the community.)
Of course, these potential drawbacks I mention only count in worlds where the concerns raised are in fact accurate. The only way to get to the bottom of things is indeed with truth-tracking norms, and being charitable (edit: and thorough) is important for that.
I just feel that the demands for evidence shouldnāt be too strong or absolute, partly also because there are instances where itās difficult to verbalize why exactly someoneās behavior seems unacceptable (even though it may be really obvious to people who are closely familiar with the situation that it is).
Lastly, I think itās particularly bad to disincentivize people for how they framed things in instances where they turned out to be right. (Itās different if there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether Halstead had valid concerns, or whether he was just pursuing a personal vendetta against someone.)
Of course, these situations are really, really tricky, and I donāt envy the forum moderators for having to navigate the waters.
If someone wants to warn the entire community that someone is behaving badly, the most effective warnings will include evidence.
True, but that also means that the right incentives are already there. If someone doesnāt provide the evidence, it could be that they find that itās hard to articulate, that there are privacy concerns, or that the person doesnāt have the mental energy at the time to polish their evidence and reasoning, but feels strongly enough that theyād like to speak up with a shorter comment. Issuing a warning discourages all those options. All else equal, providing clear evidence is certainly best. But I wouldnāt want to risk missing out on the relevant info that community veterans (whose reputation is automatically on the line when they voice a strong concern) have a negative opinion for one reason or another.
While I mostly agree with you in general (e.g. Gleb Tsipursky getting too many second chances), Iām not quite sure what youāre trying to say in this case.
Do you think that the moderators were too charitable toward Phil? He was banned from the Forum for a year, and we tried to make it clear that his comments were rude and unacceptable. Before that thread, his comments were generally unremarkable, with the exception of one bitter exchange of the type that happens once in a while for many different users. And Iām loathe to issue Forum-based consequences for someoneās interpersonal behavior outside the Forum unless itās a truly exceptional circumstance.
*****
To the extent that someoneās problematic interpersonal behavior is being discussed on the Forum, I still believe we should try to actually show evidence. Many Forum readers are new to the community, or otherwise arenāt privy to drama within the field of longtermist research. If someone wants to warn the entire community that someone is behaving badly, the most effective warnings will include evidence. (Though as I said in my reply to Halsteadās reply, his comment was still clearly valuable overall.)
Imagine showing a random person from outside the EA community* (say, someone familiar with Twitter) this comment and this comment, as well as the karma scores. That person might conclude āHalstead was right and Phil was wrongā. They might also conclude āHalstead is a popular member of the ingroup and Phil is getting cancelled for wrongthinkā.
To many of us inside the community, itās obvious that the first conclusion is more accurate. But the second thing happens all the time, and a good way to prove that weāre not in the ācancelled for wrongthinkā universe is to have a strong norm that negative claims come with evidence.
*This isnāt to say that all moderation should necessarily pass the āwould make sense to a random Twitter userā test. But I think itās a useful test to run in this case.
No, I didnāt mean to voice an opinion on that part. (And the moderation decision seemed reasonable to me.)
My comment was prompted by the concern that giving a warning to Halstead (for not providing more evidence) risks making it difficult for people to voice concerns in the future. My impression is that itās already difficult enough to voice negative opinions on othersā character. Specifically, I think thereās an effect where, if you voice a negative opinion and arenāt extremely skilled at playing the game of being highly balanced, polite and charitable (e.g., some other peopleās comments in the discussion strike me as almost superhumanly balanced and considerate), youāll offend the parts of the EA forum audience that implicitly consider being charitable to the accused a much more fundamental virtue than protecting other individuals (the potential victims of bad behavior) and the community at large (problematic individuals in my view tend to create a ādistortion fieldā around them that can have negative norm-eroding consequences in various ways ā though that was probably much more the case with other community drama than here, given that Phil wrote articles mostly at the periphery of the community.)
Of course, these potential drawbacks I mention only count in worlds where the concerns raised are in fact accurate. The only way to get to the bottom of things is indeed with truth-tracking norms, and being charitable (edit: and thorough) is important for that.
I just feel that the demands for evidence shouldnāt be too strong or absolute, partly also because there are instances where itās difficult to verbalize why exactly someoneās behavior seems unacceptable (even though it may be really obvious to people who are closely familiar with the situation that it is).
Lastly, I think itās particularly bad to disincentivize people for how they framed things in instances where they turned out to be right. (Itās different if there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether Halstead had valid concerns, or whether he was just pursuing a personal vendetta against someone.)
Of course, these situations are really, really tricky, and I donāt envy the forum moderators for having to navigate the waters.
True, but that also means that the right incentives are already there. If someone doesnāt provide the evidence, it could be that they find that itās hard to articulate, that there are privacy concerns, or that the person doesnāt have the mental energy at the time to polish their evidence and reasoning, but feels strongly enough that theyād like to speak up with a shorter comment. Issuing a warning discourages all those options. All else equal, providing clear evidence is certainly best. But I wouldnāt want to risk missing out on the relevant info that community veterans (whose reputation is automatically on the line when they voice a strong concern) have a negative opinion for one reason or another.