farp

First, I’m annoyed at the timing of this. The community still seems in the middle of sensemaking around Leverage, and figuring out what to do about it, and this post feels like it pulls the spotlight away.

Yeesh. I don't think we should police victims' timing. That seems really evil to me. We should be super skeptical of any attempts to tell people to shut up about their allegations, and "your timing is very insensitive to the real victims" really does not pass the smell test for me.

its a thumbsup emoji on mac OS. 👍

Thanks for this articulate and vulnerable writeup. I do think we might all agree that the experience you are describing seems like a very good description of what somebody in a cult would go through while facing information that would trigger disillusionment. 

I am not asserting you are in a cult, maybe I should use more delicate language, but in context I would like to point out this (to me) obvious parallel.

I have thought about this UOC post and it has grown on me.

The fact is that I believe Zoe and I believe her experience is not some sort of anomaly. But I am happy to advocate for her just on principle.

Geoff has much more resources and much at stake. Zoe just has (IMO) the truth and bravery and little to gain but peace. Justice for Geoff just doesn't need my assistance, but justice for Zoe might. 

So I am happy to blindly ally with Zoe and any other victims. And yes I would like others to do the same, and broadcast that we will fight for them. Otherwise ... (read more)

Suppose, pulling these numbers out of a hat, the total damage done to Leverage employees (as estimated by them) was $1M and the total value of Geoff's tokens are $10M; the presumption that the tokens should all go to the victims (i.e. that the value of his tokens is equal to the amount of damage done) seems about as detached from reality to me as the assumption that the correct amount of restitution is 0.

The counter argument would be:

Suppose we do not think it should be profitable to start a cult and get rich. If we enforce the norm "if we find out you sta... (read more)

I am sad that you have deleted your original comment because it was my favorite comment in this whole page! Your updated version, by comparison, is much worse (no offense). 

Look, I think once you are trying to express the idea "I think you should pay millions of dollars to the people you have very badly harmed", you should not be so concerned about whether you are doing so in a "hostile" way. I hope we can all appreciate the comedy in this even if you think neutrality is ultimately better.

I agree that your new version is more norm-conformant, but I am... (read more)

while the actual representatives of EA/rationalist community probably don't even notice that this happens

I think it matters a lot whether this is true, and there is widely known evidence that it isn't true. For example Brent Dill and (if you are willing to believe victims) Robert Lecnik. 

Your post is well said and I am also very worried about EA/rat spaces as a fruitful space for predatory actors. 

You can start seeking truth, and pivot to advocate, as UOC says.

The entire thesis of the post is that you want a mixture of advocacy and mediation in the community. So if your proposal is that we all mediate, and then pivot to advocacy, I think that is not at all what UOC says. 

Not that I super endorse the prescription / dichotomy that the post makes to begin with.

Thanks. Your comments and mayleaf's do mean a lot to me. Also, I was surprised by negative reaction to that comment and didn't really expect it to come off as admonishment or pressure. Love 2 cheerlead \o/

I might suggest creating another post (so as to not interfere too much with this one) detailing what you believe to be the case so that we can discuss and figure out any systematic issues.

Look uhhh I believe at the very least the most basic claims about how Anna handled Robert Lecnik.

I would be quite surprised if the people I would call leaders knew of things that were as severe as Zoe's account and "did nothing". I care a lot whether that's true.

👍 (non sarcastic)

The information in Zoe's Medium post was significant news to me and others I've spoken to. 

That's a good thing to assert. 
It seems preeeetty likely that some leaders in the community knew more or less what was up. I want people to care about whether that is true or not.

To do that investigation and postmortem, we can't skip to sentencing

I get this sentiment, but at the same time I think it's good to be clear about what is at stake. It's easy for me to interpret comments like "Reminder that Leverage 1.0 is defunct and it seems very unlikely that th... (read more)

I have no private information to share. I think there is an obvious difference between asking powerful people in the community to stand up for the truth, and asking some rando commentator to de-anonymize. 

That's my context. However I agree that my contributions haven't been very high EV in that I'm very far on the outside of a delicate situation and throwing my weight around. So I won't keep trying to intervene / subtextually post.

Re: @Ruby on my brusqueness

LW/EA has more "world saving" orgs than just Leverage. Implicit to "world saving" orgs, IMO, is that we should tolerate some impropriety for the greater good. Or that we should handle things quietly in order to not damage the greater mission. 

I think that our "world saving" orgs ask a lot of trust from the broader community -- MIRI is a very clear example. I'm not really trying to condemn secrecy I am just pointing out that trust is asked of us.

I recognize that this is inflammatory but I don't see a reason to beat around the... (read more)

Let's stand up for the truth regardless of threats from Geoff/Leverage, and let's stand up for the truth regardless of the mob. 

I feel like it's going to be really hard to say anything without people pigeonholing me into belonging to some group that is trying to rewrite the rationality social and political landscape some way.

Let's stand up for the truth! Maintaining some aura of neutrality or impartiality at the expense of the truth would be IMO quite obviously bad. 

I myself have access to some sensitive and somewhat confidential information, and

I also sort of don’t expect that much goal divergence on the accountability steps that very-optimistically come after those steps, either, basically because integrity and visible trustworthiness serve most good goals in the long run, and vengeance or temporarily-overextended-trust serves little.

To clarify: goal divergence between whom? Geoff and Zoe? Zoe and me? Me and you?