Project lead of LessWrong 2.0, often helping the EA Forum with various issues with the forum. If something is broken on the site, it's a good chance it's my fault (Sorry!).
If I were to receive such messages, I would likely fail to respond (unintentionally) at least 20% of the time.
Yeah, I was about to say the same thing. Looks like some exponents got lost in the crossposting.
I do know that people are busy and easily distracted and probably wouldn't sign up in advance, even if they would like to participate, based on my past experience of generally getting people to do things.
I do think we could build this list over multiple years though, while I previously thought that maybe the right choice is to just not sign up to volunteer, if you are in favor of the ritual, there is an argument that you should sign up to be a volunteer, because if you don't we might have to pick someone who is more likely to press the button instead of you, which still creates a decent incentive, and I hadn't considered before, but am overall still concerned about people just kind of not noticing the email and opt-in process until the day comes and they are sad they weren't considered (or the ritual doesn't happen at all because not enough people who are actually unlikely to press the button opted in).
I like the idea of having an obvious opt-in form into the game/ritual that makes it clearer that you understand how people might react to how you use the code. Maybe just something simple like having to click through two Google Docs in order to actually get your code, or a small Google Form that has the code on its confirmation screen. I really like the overall ritual and game, but also don't want people to feel like they are tacitly signaling approval. The form could also have a simple checkbox that says "I don't want to see my codes, and I don't want to be sent codes in future years", which we could take into account when deciding on who to send codes to in future years.
(Note: I haven't been very involved with the planning for this year's exercise, mostly leaving it to Ruby)
I quite like it as a real trust-building exercise. I think overall actually getting 100+ people on the internet to not take a destructive action like this is surprisingly hard, and I think it is a really great, surprisingly unique, attribute of our communities that we can coordinate on making things like this happen.
I find myself reasonably compelled by some of the arguments for something like "asking for opt-in before sending the codes", though I don't yet actually have a logistically good way of making this happen. I think having a whole two-step process where you ask people to register themselves on a list is quite onerous, and probably wouldn't get a great response rate.
A thing that feels more reasonable to me is to instead of sending out the codes in the email in plain text, instead you get a link to a form that shows you the code at the end, after 1-2 boxes of dialog that ask you whether you are OK with there potentially being real consequences of you using these codes. It's still not great, and it would still be hard to distinguish the people who opted-in and received the codes but decided not to use them from the people who just decided to not receive their codes in the first place (which is a safer move in the end, if you want to make sure you don't use them).
This also matches my model. I think book completion rates are quite low, and I expect book distribution without followup to have very little effect. In my Fermis this can make book distribution still come out reasonably high, but it doesn't tend to come out competitive with the best other interventions I've thought of.
I think there are ways to increase completion and followup rates, mostly by getting people to give books to their friends instead of doing broad distributions, but that also tends to be a bit harder to scale.
See also equivalent question on LW: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mQDoZ2yCX2ujLxJDk/what-lesswrong-rationality-ea-chat-servers-exist-that
Ah, yeah. I agree that that would be a natural next level of integration. I do think the current setup does cover that use case acceptably, and the biggest problem is more that the feature is completely undiscoverable. Like, you can create flashcards for any post, and then just leave them as a comment, which seems like the natural place to find them anyways.
We have that! The functionality is a bit hidden, but you can see how to do it here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yK8mKmMQ73TuzgCv6/you-can-now-embed-flashcard-quizzes-in-your-lesswrong-posts
On desktop at least you should be able to hover over the notification and see the post the notification is for.