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 they are entering a potentially shitty looking fight with little to gain against somebody with everything to lose.

I don't demand that no mediation take place, but if I want to plant my flag, that's my business. It's not like I am doing anything dishonest in the course of my advocacy.

And to be completely frank, as an advocate for the victims, I don't really want AnnaSalomon to be one of the major mediators here. I don't think she's got a good track record with CFAR stuff at all -- I have mentioned Robert Lecnik a few times already. 

I think Kelsey's post is right -- mediators need to seem impartial. For me, Anna can't serve this role. I couldn't say how representative I am.

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 started a cult and got rich off it, you only get to be 90% rich instead of 100% rich", well, that is not very powerful. Maybe the rest should go to actually-effective charity or something.

That said, a norm where we say "you don't get to be rich anymore" is sort of moot when ultimately Geoff has all the Leverage 🥁💥

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 curious if you think it is an equally thought-provoking / persuasive / useful presentation of the ideas.

I also think that your new version is inadequate for leaving out the important context that Reserve probably made a lot of money.