Never in all my life have I seen someone go to so much trouble to disguise bad-faith criticism as good-faith criticism.

One of the things that this post has most clearly demonstrated is that EA has a terrible habit of liking, praising, and selectively reading really long posts to compensate for not reading most of it.

And as a result of not actually reading the entire thing, they never actually see how whacked the thing is that they just upvoted.

Most of the content here is amalgamated from winning entries in the EA criticism contest last year, and it rarely cites the original authors.

There's a fairly even mix of good-faith and bad-faith criticism here.

A lot of the good-faith criticism is almost a carbon copy of the winners of last year's EA criticism contest.

Democratization changes the relative power distribution within EA. The people proposing it are usually power-seeking in some way and already have plans to capitalize off of a democratic shift.

This is actually not true at all. Emile Torres's sockpuppet accounts on EAforum behave very differently from Emile Torres's twitter account, and their primary audience in this mode is very much EA.

People should always use a throwaway email when communicating with an anonymous account.

If you are an actual anonymous committee of 10 people like you claim, please delete the anonymous email address prominently displayed at the bottom of this post. Mining EAforum for people's contact information is behavior that is virtually identical to Emile Torres's recent stalking activity, and contacting people through DMs instead of mining for personal email addresses is the best way to verify that this post was made in good faith.

Especially because bad-faith actors in EA have a documented history of spending large amounts of time and effort posing as good-faith actors, including heavy use of anonymous sockpuppet accounts.