Thanks for saying that, but no request from me. (And my guess is it'll be fine and I'll add my bullets back in a day or so.)
Some brief reactions:
Noted. FYI in my culture it's considered pro-social to let people know what trades you'd be up for and what price.
Also, and there's a good chance that this isn't the main thing you're responding to, but FWIW we're not doing active fundraising any more (as we were successful at getting our basic needs met for continuing), so this isn't like me trying to get my salary fundraised or anything like that.
Appreciate the comment. I sadly decided to edit out a few bullets on that to check in on what's okay to share. That's my fault, I will make sure to leave a new comment when I am able to add them back in, probably in a day or two (but might be longer).
I looked through all the mentions of his behavior in the post. I think only one of them is plausibly misleading. I say
I see clear reasons to think that Kat, Emerson and Drew intimidated these people into accepting some of the actions or dynamics that hurt them
I only have reports of intimidating actions from Emerson and Kat, not Drew. I don't have any reason to think he reduced the level of intimidation, but I don't want to convey that I know of positive acts of intimidation that he took, beyond broadly participating in the dynamics set up by Emerson and Kat and being supportive of his brother. I've edited that bit and included it in an addendum collecting all edits.
Speaking from my perspective, not from anyone else's (e.g. Alice's, Chloe's, yours) I don't see Drew as exonerated from the dynamics at Nonlinear, even while I think that Emerson and Kat are each substantially more responsible for them.
I think the best thing to be said in his favor is that Alice felt he was the only one of the three of them to really hear her concerns (e.g. financially) and sometimes advocate for her needs.
I've made an edit at the top.
Confirmed, this is Chloe.
I confirm that this is Chloe, who contacted me through our standard communication channels to say she was posting a comment today.
True! But for the record I definitely don't have remotely enough personal wealth to cover such a suit. So if libel suits are permissible then you may only hear about credible accusations from people on teams who are willing to back the financial cost, the number of which in my estimation is currently close to 1.
Added: I don't mean to be more pessimistic than is accurate. I am genuinely uncertain to what extent people will have my back if a lawsuit comes up (Manifold has it at 13%), and my uncertainty range does include "actually quite a lot of people are willing to spend their money to defend my and others' ability to openly share info like this".
I don't mean to imply that I couldn't see evidence that persuaded me that this concern had been mediated sufficiently. But silencing and intimidating into being quiet is a problem that self-reinforces — when it's happening, it stops you from learning about it, and about anything else bad that's happening. So I think it's important to take a much more hardline stance against it than with other norm-violations even if the two norm-violations caused a similar amount of damage.