My current feelings are a mixture of the following:
I disagree with a lot of the details of what many people have said (both people who had bad experiences and people defending their Leverage experiences and giving positive testimonials), and feel like expressing my take has some chance of making those people feel like their experiences are invalidated, or at least spark some conflict of some type
I know that Geoff and Leverage more broadly in the past have said pretty straightforwardly that they will take pretty adversarial action if someone threatens their reputation or brand, and that makes me both feel like I can trust many fewer things in the discussion, and makes me personally more hesitant to share some things (while also feeling like that’s kind of cowardly, but I haven’t yet had the time to really work through my feelings here, which in itself has some chilling effects that I feel uncomfortable with, etc.)
On the other side, there have been a lot of really vicious and aggressive attacks to anyone saying anything pro-leverage for many years, with a strength that I think is overall even greater and harder to predict than what Geoff and Leverage have been doing. It’s also been more of a crowd-driven phenomenon, which makes it less predictable and more scary.
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, and that makes me feel like I have to actively think about how to phrase what I am saying in a way that avoids that pigeonholing effect (as a concrete example, one person approached me who read Ben’s initial comment on the “BayAreaHuman” post that said “I confirm that this is a real person in good standing” as an endorsement of the post, when the comment was really just intended as confirming some facts about the identity of the poster, with basically complete independence from the content of the post)
I myself have access to some sensitive and somewhat confidential information, and am struggling with navigating exactly which parts are OK to share and which ones are not.
Geoff and Leverage more broadly in the past have said pretty straightforwardly that they will take pretty adversarial action if someone threatens their reputation or brand
I assume there isn’t a public record of this anywhere? Could I hear more details about what was said? This sounds atrocious to me.
I similarly feel that I can’t trust the exculpatory or positive evidence about Leverage much so long as I know there’s pressure to withhold negative information. (Including informal NDAs and such.)
On the other side, there have been a lot of really vicious and aggressive attacks to anyone saying anything pro-leverage for many years, with a strength that I think is overall even greater and harder to predict than what Geoff and Leverage have been doing. It’s also been more of a crowd-driven phenomenon, which makes it less predictable and more scary.
I agree with this too, and think it’s similarly terrible, but harder to blame any individual for (and harder to fix).
I assume it’s to a large extent an extreme example of the ‘large inferential gaps + true beliefs that sound weird’ afflicting a lot of EA orgs, including MIRI. Though if Leverage has been screwed up for a long time, some of that public reaction may also have been watered over the years by true rumors spreading about the org.
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 am struggling with navigating exactly which parts are OK to share and which ones are not.
I think that it is seen as not very normative on LW to say “I know things, confidential things I will not share, and because of that I have a very [bad/good] impression of this person or group”. But IMO its important to surface. Vouching is an important social process.
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.
Anna is attempting to make people comfortable having this difficult conversation about Leverage by first inviting them just to share what factors are affecting their participation. Oliver is kindly obliging and saying what’s going through his mind.
This seems like a good approach to me for getting the conversation going. Once people have shared what’s going through their minds–and probably these need to received with limited judgmentality–the group can then understand the dynamics at play and figure out how to proceed having a productive discussion.
All that to say, I think it’s better to hold off on pressuring people or saying their reactions aren’t normative [1] in this sub-thread. Generally, I think having this whole conversation well requires a gentleness and patience in the face of the severe, hard-to-talk-about situation. Or to be direct, I think your comments in this thread have been brusque/pushy in a way that’s hurting the conversation (others feel free to chime in if that seems wrong to them).
[1] For what it’s worth, I think disclosing that your stance is informed by private info is good and proper.
I think your comments in this thread have been brusque/pushy in a way that’s hurting the conversation (others feel free to chime in if that seems wrong to them).
I mentioned in a different comment that I’ve appreciated some of farp’s comments here for pushing back against what I see as a missing mood in this conversation (acknowledgment that the events described in Zoe’s account are horrifying, as well as reassurance that people in leadership positions are taking the allegations seriously and might take some actions in response). I also appreciate Ruby’s statement that we shouldn’t pressure or judge people who might have something relevant to say.
The unitofcaring post on mediators and advocates seems relevant here. I interpret farp (edit: not necessarily in the parent comment, but in various other comments in this thread) as saying that they’d like to see more advocacy in this thread instead of just mediation. I am not someone who has any personal experiences to share about Leverage, but if I imagine how I’d personally feel if I did, I think I agree.
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.
I liked Farp’s “Let’s stand up for the truth” comment, and thought it felt appropriate. (I think for different reasons than “mediators and advocates”—I just like people bluntly stating what they think, saying the ‘obvious’, and cheerleading for values that genuinely deserve cheering for. I guess I didn’t expect Ollie to feel pressured-in-a-bad-way by the comment, even if he disagrees with the implied advice.)
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 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.
My current feelings are a mixture of the following:
I disagree with a lot of the details of what many people have said (both people who had bad experiences and people defending their Leverage experiences and giving positive testimonials), and feel like expressing my take has some chance of making those people feel like their experiences are invalidated, or at least spark some conflict of some type
I know that Geoff and Leverage more broadly in the past have said pretty straightforwardly that they will take pretty adversarial action if someone threatens their reputation or brand, and that makes me both feel like I can trust many fewer things in the discussion, and makes me personally more hesitant to share some things (while also feeling like that’s kind of cowardly, but I haven’t yet had the time to really work through my feelings here, which in itself has some chilling effects that I feel uncomfortable with, etc.)
On the other side, there have been a lot of really vicious and aggressive attacks to anyone saying anything pro-leverage for many years, with a strength that I think is overall even greater and harder to predict than what Geoff and Leverage have been doing. It’s also been more of a crowd-driven phenomenon, which makes it less predictable and more scary.
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, and that makes me feel like I have to actively think about how to phrase what I am saying in a way that avoids that pigeonholing effect (as a concrete example, one person approached me who read Ben’s initial comment on the “BayAreaHuman” post that said “I confirm that this is a real person in good standing” as an endorsement of the post, when the comment was really just intended as confirming some facts about the identity of the poster, with basically complete independence from the content of the post)
I myself have access to some sensitive and somewhat confidential information, and am struggling with navigating exactly which parts are OK to share and which ones are not.
I assume there isn’t a public record of this anywhere? Could I hear more details about what was said? This sounds atrocious to me.
I similarly feel that I can’t trust the exculpatory or positive evidence about Leverage much so long as I know there’s pressure to withhold negative information. (Including informal NDAs and such.)
I agree with this too, and think it’s similarly terrible, but harder to blame any individual for (and harder to fix).
I assume it’s to a large extent an extreme example of the ‘large inferential gaps + true beliefs that sound weird’ afflicting a lot of EA orgs, including MIRI. Though if Leverage has been screwed up for a long time, some of that public reaction may also have been watered over the years by true rumors spreading about the org.
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.
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 think that it is seen as not very normative on LW to say “I know things, confidential things I will not share, and because of that I have a very [bad/good] impression of this person or group”. But IMO its important to surface. Vouching is an important social process.
It seems that your account is registered to just participate in this discussion and you withold your personal identity.
If you sincerely believe that information should be shared, why are you withholding yourself and tell other people to take risks?
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.
Anna is attempting to make people comfortable having this difficult conversation about Leverage by first inviting them just to share what factors are affecting their participation. Oliver is kindly obliging and saying what’s going through his mind.
This seems like a good approach to me for getting the conversation going. Once people have shared what’s going through their minds–and probably these need to received with limited judgmentality–the group can then understand the dynamics at play and figure out how to proceed having a productive discussion.
All that to say, I think it’s better to hold off on pressuring people or saying their reactions aren’t normative [1] in this sub-thread. Generally, I think having this whole conversation well requires a gentleness and patience in the face of the severe, hard-to-talk-about situation. Or to be direct, I think your comments in this thread have been brusque/pushy in a way that’s hurting the conversation (others feel free to chime in if that seems wrong to them).
[1] For what it’s worth, I think disclosing that your stance is informed by private info is good and proper.
I mentioned in a different comment that I’ve appreciated some of farp’s comments here for pushing back against what I see as a missing mood in this conversation (acknowledgment that the events described in Zoe’s account are horrifying, as well as reassurance that people in leadership positions are taking the allegations seriously and might take some actions in response). I also appreciate Ruby’s statement that we shouldn’t pressure or judge people who might have something relevant to say.
The unitofcaring post on mediators and advocates seems relevant here. I interpret farp (edit: not necessarily in the parent comment, but in various other comments in this thread) as saying that they’d like to see more advocacy in this thread instead of just mediation. I am not someone who has any personal experiences to share about Leverage, but if I imagine how I’d personally feel if I did, I think I agree.
On mediators and advocates: I think order-of-operations MATTERS.
You can start seeking truth, and pivot to advocate, as UOC says.
What people often can’t do easily is start with advocate, and pivot to truth.
And with something like this? What you advocated early can do a lot to color both what and who you listen to, and who you hear from.
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.
I liked Farp’s “Let’s stand up for the truth” comment, and thought it felt appropriate. (I think for different reasons than “mediators and advocates”—I just like people bluntly stating what they think, saying the ‘obvious’, and cheerleading for values that genuinely deserve cheering for. I guess I didn’t expect Ollie to feel pressured-in-a-bad-way by the comment, even if he disagrees with the implied advice.)
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 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.
I will be happy to contribute financially to Zoe’s legal defense, if Geoff decides to take revenge.
In the meanwhile, I am curious about what actually happened. The more people talk, the better.