I suppose it would be interesting to see if there is anyone left who does approve of how the basilisk was handled.
As opposed to which other specific possible way of handling it?
For example I may think that there were both better choices and worse choices, and the Eliezer's choice wasn't optimal, but also wasn't obviously bad. Now do I agree or disagree?
That's more approval than I was expecting anyone to still have. But it seems like it would be easy to offer a range of choices that would cover most of the possibilities ("was handled perfectly", "was handled fine", "was handled badly but not especially so", "was handled badly enough that it should lead to policy changes").
That said I think the question I'm most interested in is how many people think the current approach is better than the "null option": no special treatment, discuss it normally the way we discuss anything else, and apply the usual up- and downvotes to basilisk-related content.
I have finally gotten the survey to a point where I'm pretty happy with it. I have no big changes I want to make this year. But as is the tradition, please take a week to discuss what minor changes you want to the survey (within the limits of what Google Docs and finite time can do) and I will try to comply. In particular, we can continue the tradition that any question you request can be added to the Extra Credit section unless it's illegal or horribly offensive.
You can find last year's survey results here and you can find the very preliminary version of this year's survey (so far exactly the same as last year's) here.
EDIT: I don't particularly like the IQ test or the Big Five test used last year. If you have any better replacements for either, tell me and I'll put them in.
EDIT2: CFAR, you added seven questions last year. Let me know what you want to do with those this year. Keep them? Remove them? Replace them?