Thanks for that, really good!
Could you elaborate on "less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females" and "paternity certainty is a nonissue" please?
Great post. The meet sounds awesome and touched on many things I'm interested in. I'd love to be on the same continent to attend these more regularly than once a year.
One possible typo: "This was followed by multiple passes for people to affiliated with any proposed topic".
I think that's a fair answer, and I especially approve of the mentality you describe here:
Mostly, my intent with these posts is for them to be seen and for people to get a few ideas out of them - and while it would be good for all sorts of reasons to make these posts high quality in other ways, if people get some ideas out of them but don't think it's that great a post, or even down-vote it for valid reasons of style and content-type, that would mostly be a win.
I do however believe this makes your series a better candidate for 'discussion' and then moving to 'main' if it still seems worthy after a few rounds of feedback. The first such round, it appears to me in this case, should be an earnest attempt at stylistic and structural edits out of consideration for your readers, if only because you're wasting your own time if you write something no-one deems worth the trouble of reading the whole way through in the first place.
As a very basic starting point, there is not really any excuse for posting the entire massive article without a summary break. The use of which is, needless to say, more delicate than simply snipping the bottom X% off the article as it appears on the front page. Good writers on here begin their articles with something that readers can use to get a clear idea of whether they actually want to continue reading, and this beginning to an article is surprisingly difficult to write! However, it is instructive in trimming fat from your prose and writing with clarity because, after all, you probably do want people to click that "continue reading" button if they're likely to read on and upvote, and not click it if they're likely to read on and downvote. Why is that rather-patronising explanation relevant here? Because you may have saved yourself a tonne of downvotes on both articles by using proper lead-ins to preselect your readers.
Now this isn't a comment on the content of the article itself but, given that your first part in this series has negative votes (at the time of this comment and, most crucially, at the time this part 2 was posted), I question the wisdom of pushing on before addressing the perceived problems with the first post. On the other hand, perhaps you believe continuing to the next instalment will place the first part in a better context. Another theory is that you don't care about the negative votes or comments and are writing for those who do like what you're doing, and the downvoters can disembark the boat if they choose. Enough speculation from me, what's your stance?
I love the bit at the end where Ibrahim (market trader) says it's "the hardest money I've ever had to work for" and Nick (charity worker) jokes "he obviously hasn't worked in the charity sector to try and get money", then the look on Nick's face when Ibrahim says he's going to respray his yacht!
I felt that Nick displayed a good mix of hot and cold rationality.
Why "summary for impatient readers" not "summary"?
Me, Chris, CJ, Emily, Jonathan, Roman, Arnie, Richard, xrchz, and I think three/four others to whom I apologise for not remembering/catching their names (Tim? Another Richard?).
Why the downvote? I'm expressing gratitude that goes beyond the anonymity and single point karma increase of merely clicking thumbs up, and clarifying that the answer was acceptable to me.
My reasoning is that by stating this publicly I make it more likely people will respond in detail to such requests in future, as they see that (some) such requesters do read the responses and do appreciate them. I am also making clear that the original request was earnest and not rhetorical.