This is not true, just a duplicate account issue.
I'm actually not sure because I have the moderator UI so I may have extra buttons, but you can try the three dots next to the post.
If that doesn't work, let me know or contact us via the help chat on the bottom right.
You can't, it's only possible for admins. Feel free to either reply here with the username you want, send me a private message, or use the help chat on the bottom right :)
I've moved this post to "personal blogpost", which might somewhat help with that. That said, I'm fine with having this post on the frontpage.
I am anonymous because vocally disagreeing with the status quo would probably destroy any prospects of getting hired or funded by EA orgs (see my heavily downvoted comment about my experiences somewhere at the bottom of this thread).This clearly doesn't apply to Rubi, so what's up?
I am anonymous because vocally disagreeing with the status quo would probably destroy any prospects of getting hired or funded by EA orgs (see my heavily downvoted comment about my experiences somewhere at the bottom of this thread).
This clearly doesn't apply to Rubi, so what's up?
There are many reasons for people to use pseudonyms on the Forum, and we allow it with few restrictions. It's also fine to have multiple accounts.
To clarify, that's not to say Rubi is necessarily Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh. I have no idea and I don't know Seán.However, this situation is
To clarify, that's not to say Rubi is necessarily Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh. I have no idea and I don't know Seán.
However, this situation is
While this comment was deleted, the moderators discussed it in its original form (which included multiple serious insults to another user) and decided to issue a two-week ban to Charles, starting today. We don't tolerate personal insults on the Forum.
Personally I read this as a straightforward accusation of dishonesty - something I would expect moderators to object to if the comment was critical (rather than supportive) of EA orthodoxy.
As a moderator, I wouldn't object to this comment no matter who made it. I see it as a criticism of someone's work, not an accusation that the person was dishonest.
If someone wrote a paper critiquing the differential technology paradigm and spoke to lots of reviewers about it — including many who were known to be pro-DT — but didn't cite any pro-DT arguments, it would be... (read more)
As a moderator: the "basic background knowledge" point is skirting the boundaries of the Forum's norms; even if you didn't intend to condescend, I found it condescending, for the reasons I note in my other reply.
The initial comment — which claims that Halstead is misrepresenting a position, when "he understands and disagrees" is also possible — also seems uncharitable.
I do see this charitable reading as an understandable thing to miss, given that everyone is leaving brief comments about a complex question and there isn't much context. But I als... (read more)
I think Halstead knows what degrowth advocates claim about degrowth (that it won't have built-in humanitarian costs). And I think he disagrees with them, which isn't the same as not understanding their arguments.
Imagine people arguing whether to invade Iraq in the year following the 9/11 attacks. One of them points out that invading the country will involve enormous built-in humanitarian costs. Their interlocutor replies:
"Your characterization of an Iraq invasion as having "enormous humanitarian costs" "built in" is flatly untrue in a way that is obvious t... (read more)
As a moderator, I thought Lukas's comment was fine.
I read it as a humorous version of "this doesn't sound like something someone would say in those words", or "I cast doubt on this being the actual thing someone said, because people generally don't make threats that are this obvious/open".
Reading between the lines, I saw the comment as "approaching a disagreement with curiosity" by implying a request for clarification or specification ("what did you actually hear someone say"?). Others seem to have read the same implication, though Lukas could have ... (read more)