4 ms·
>They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved: It'
by marcinzm 6y ago
>They are not apologizing for the existence of the complaints. They do not imply that Jeremy is considered guilty -- they say that the issue is unresolved:
It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremy was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty.
>Their language does not seem to put the onus on Jeremy:
What you quoted also says:
>outlined in the appeals process of our enforcement guide.
Are appeals automatic in the enforcement guide or is an appeal already pending?
edit: And if he was never found guilty then why is this an appeals process. Doesn't that usually mean an initial judgement was rendered and is being appealed?
- klyrs 6y ago> It's very unclear to me if they meant to say Jeremey was not guilty when they talked to him at a certain point in time or if he is still not guilty. It's clear to me that they're trying to not express an opinion there. I read this as them recusing themselves from the situation and doing their best to not express an opinion about a ruling which may or may not have been made (the murkiness about this also seems deliberate)
- marcinzm 6y agoSeems to me that he was found guilty and they're just trying to avoid the backlash from saying so. He's too tired of it all to argue about it further so they win by default and it all goes away. Their enforcement guide only mentions appeal once and it's clear that it only applies after a judgement was already made and requires the reported person to do something: >Give them a place to appeal to if there is one, but in the meantime the action stands.