Lorenzo, Is your comment about Emre Kaplan's comment or Daedalus?
If Emre Kaplan, I figure it's okay if there are very very few such "strong emotions, low 'substance'" type comments, which I believe is the case.
If Daedalus, I maybe agree. But is "True" that much different from comments that are like "+1" and then just a couple words of justification*? (A potential answer is "yes, because comments that are like '+1 and then a couple words of justification' are meaningfully harder to replicate/spam than "True" and less likely to slowly erode discussion norms.")
*Edit: it appears I do have one comment I've made myself that's just "+1" without any further justification haha. So maybe if "True" is not good, then maybe clearer discussion norms are required. I did a skim of (what I believe are) the Forum discussion norms and it does not appear to me that comments like "True" or "+1" are addressed by anything in the "Strong discussion norms" or "Softer discussion norms and tips" sections.
Hi Miguel, I broadly agree with AbigailT's comment. Could you expand why you think this is a bad thing? From my perspective, it just seems like he put 2 people in touch, and that Elon's purchase of Twitter was not immoral.
By the way, sorry you got downvoted so much. I suspect it's because your comment was (1) strong/accusatory, (2) didn't have justification, (3) and not obviously true.
Thank you for writing this post. The discussion and critiques brought up are important and valuable, and I just want to say that I'm grateful you put this out there, since I've been very worried about the same things.
It's worth noting that the creative writing contest offered 55 days (7-8 weeks)* for submissions after the original post was posted (though I know this is different from creative writing). I think this is a reasonable amount of time and that this contest should offer roughly the same amount of time.
Edit: Somehow I messed up my math haha. It was 47 days, 6-7 weeks.
I agree with all three of Vaidehi's comments as of typing this. I'll add that I think some posts would require research or talking to experts and could therefore take much more than 10 hours.
One response may be that this contest isn't intended for those kinds of posts. But since those posts could be potentially very high value to the community, it seems reasonable to extend the deadline to encourage those kinds of posts. It seems to me like the value of extending the deadline and potentially getting a few more especially well-researched, well-argued posts outweighs the value of keeping the deadline March 31 and getting shorter posts that are written after spring break and between EAGs.
I think Cornelius and Lumpyproletariat make good points, but as evelynciara points out in another comment, it's also important to make sure you don't do anything that's seen as cultural appropriation-y. There's one world where marketing rare Chinese tofu as something other than tofu could lead to accusations of white-washing and bad PR overall*. That being said, I could imagine that branding it with some other names used for the specific tofus in China could work, since it wouldn't be white-washing (I think?) and it wouldn't carry the negative connotation of tofu.
I know these are all conflicting comments, so my advice is just to be thoughtful about the various considerations before committing to a name :).
*Particularly since veganism is sadly (anecdotally) perceived as being super white, even though that's not true in America at least (BBC).
Thank you so much for writing this y'all!