...I seem to recall a reasonably-popular post on LW not too long ago talking about people relying on debate tactics. I found myself disagreeing with it because I'd never met somebody who actually argued like they were in a debate, tracking points, with victory depending on whether or not you left points unaddressed. I found the whole thing vaguely ridiculous, predicated on a style of argument I had never encountered, in spite of years spent arguing on the internet. I'm updating now. People who think debate rules apply outside debate club do exist. Now, to dissect what I just did, I combined an admission that I was wrong about something, with a note that I was updating my beliefs - both extremely positive things on Less Wrong. And I did so in the context of eviscerating anything like a point you might have thought you had, by linking your behavior to a recently-noted poor practice in rationality. I established my own virtue while cutting yours down; if I had thought your point was worth avoiding due to its danger to my position, I would simultaneously have cut off any ability of you to bring up the point again without looking even more pathetic and losing even more face. That is artfully executed Dark Arts. It wasn't a danger, incidentally. The reason I didn't respond to it is that it wasn't worth responding to. Bluntly, if you can't tell the difference between endorsements of yourself personally and endorsements of your organization, you're not running an organization at all, you're running a cult of personality. Which ties into another thing - if Ella is an independent person... well, I say the word "independent", but she behaves more like an extension of yourself, reflecting even your style of writing/speech. Which is to say, she behaves like a member of a cult.