I don't have any particular list, this is just a touchstone for evaluating anyone's writing. It isn't even about agreeing with what they are for, but there must be something, or they are just an empty vessel.

Just to take the obvious example anyway, Eliezer's writings are overwhelmingly focussed on what he is for. Even when he makes a negative critique (e.g of conventional concepts of scientific method) it is always in the service of saying what he would put in its place (Bayesian practice).