There's something darkly funny about the idea that one would need to "be a shark," "move fast and break things," threaten and coerce employees," ""crush enemies"...

All to... publish a podcast of already written articles? Do some career coaching?

I certainly don't think it suggests he's a bad actor, but it seems reasonable to consider it improper conduct with a small organization of people living and working together - even if Alice and Chloe don't see it as an issue. I don't have a strong view one way or the other, but it seemed worth flagging in the context of your claim .

Thanks - more sympathetic to the ask in that case, though I don't think you were obliged to wait. 

Within the community tab 'New and Upvoted' seems to still be the same posts, month after month. Perhaps new should gain more weight, given the current posting frequency and upvoting?

The article alleges he was dating an employee who seems to have been a subborniate, which someone might claim is improper conduct. 

They also said that in the past day or so (upon becoming aware of the contents of the post), they asked Ben to delay his publication of this post by one week so that they could gather their evidence and show it to Ben before he publishes it (to avoid having him publish false information). However, he refused to do so.

This is really weird to me. These allegations have been circling for over a year, and presumably Nonlinear has known about this piece for months now. Why do they still need to get their evidence together? And even if they do - just due to extraneous circumstances - why do they feel so entitled to the piece being held for a week, when they have had ample time to collect their side of the story. 

Edited, thank you!

I'm very disappointed in the author for writing a non-rigorous, slanderous accusation of an organization that does a whole lot of good

What are you accusing of being slanderous?

Influencing the creation of Professor Quirrel in HPMOR and being influenced by Professor Quirrel in HPMOR both seem to correlate with being a bad actor in EA - a potential red flag to watch out for. 

they’ll be paying maybe $500 for a ticket that costs us $1000.

There may be room for more effective price discrimination here. When one buys a ticket to EAG from a corporation that is not price sensitive, ideally they would pay (at least) the complete cost of their admission. I recall their being tiers beyond "full price" - to sponsor other attendees - but this would not be a legitimate corporate expense. Could there be an easy way for corporate attendees to pay the full price?