Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest and reviews all entries, praising their strengths and noting their impact on readers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. The winning entry is about calorie restriction and aging by Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese, with a close second on the ethics of eating meat by David G and Froolow. Scott praises both entries for their different strengths: the calorie restriction piece for its focused approach on a factual question, and the meat ethics piece for its comprehensive review of arguments. He notes that the meat ethics collaboration had a significant impact on readers' eating habits. Scott then briefly reviews the other entries, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. He concludes by explaining the prize distribution and his decision not to run the contest next year, citing various challenges. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander asks readers to vote for their favorite among eight posted adversarial collaborations, with prizes for the top two. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces that all eight adversarial collaborations have been posted and provides a link to the full list. He invites readers who have read all the collaborations to vote for their favorite using a provided link. Scott explains that this year, the winner will be decided by popular vote, with $2000 going to first place and $500 to second place. He concludes by thanking all participants, readers, and voters. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces winners of the adversarial collaboration contest and shares participant feedback, while reflecting on potential issues with the format. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the adversarial collaboration contest, with prizes awarded for collaborations on education, transgender children, vaccination, and Islam's compatibility with democracy. He shares detailed feedback from the collaborators on their experiences, including initial positions, how much their views shifted, and advice for future participants. Scott then reflects on some concerns raised by the process, such as collaborators avoiding core disagreements or inadvertently legitimizing fringe views. Despite these issues, he expresses interest in continuing to promote the format and calls for ideas to improve it. Shorter summary