The point about ongoing work seems fair enough! 

On Gather Town: My problem with it is that to me Gather Town is too much fun, you are right it is a warmer place and more fun place, but I want to spend my time on a service like this working, not having casual chats with EAs, racing on a racetrack or just exploring the space! 

Im missing two of my personal top recommendations here: 

1. The EA Focusmate group. I have made some good connections there, somehow I feel it works better if I am matched with someone from this community. 
2. Confido.institute .  A forecasting tool for during meetings or for within organisation! Potentially makes meetings faster and it is a simple way to get some groups forecasts. 

It might be helpful to have a list of these articles on a separate website somewhere, could be a good resource to link to if it is unconnected to EA / LW. 

I don't necessarily disagree but from an organizational perspective: Is this not the sort of thing we have a wiki for? 

I think adversarial collaborations are very interesting, so I am curious to hear if anyone has done any work on how we can make this technique scale a bit more? Such as writing a good manual for how to do this? 

Thank you for answering! It is reassuring to know that previous attendance is taken into account.

I feel like there is a lot of content about getting the most out of an EAG on the forum, but not that much on who should go (again). I understand that this is going to depend a lot on personal circumstances, but I am wondering whether there are any guidelines / tips on who should apply to EAGs? And how many EAGs are too many?  

I have never gone to an EAG and felt I wasted my time, and have always come back with new valuable connections, but obviously going to all EAGs is too much, and you are taking away a spot from someone else who might need it more. Deciding where to draw the line is something I am struggling with a bit. 

Hi Lizka, 

Thank you for your response! I will contact OWID about this as well, that seems like a great idea! 

On your sixth point: I am sorry for not explaining it well initially, my concern would be something like this: 

1. A government opens a forecasting questions on whether it will achieve its emissions target for 2030 (Or a target for anything else).  
2. Forecasters in aggregate predict that there is only an 5% chance of success.
3. This is seen as unacceptably low by policy-makers and new policy is announced and implemented. 
4. Forecasters adjust and now think there is a 60% chance of success.
5. This happens several times. 
6.  Smart forecasters now understand that low aggregate forecasts will result in new policy initiatives, so a good strategy would be to  consistently predict higher chances of success than their true belief under current policy. 

I think this is roughly similar to the concern you expressed here under "Causality might diverge from conditionality".  

And of course I also doubt there are currently any governments responding enough to a prediction market / forecasting tournament for this to become a problem, but I am hoping that in future we might see a lot more government interest.