5 ms·

That's a naïve reading. They are dragging more into the public sphere than necessary to raise their grievances. They could have kept the statement confined to

That's a naïve reading. They are dragging more into the public sphere than necessary to raise their grievances. They could have kept the statement confined to disagreement with the government structure. Leave it ambiguous between whether it was a theoretical weakness in the structure, or a practical one where they already experienced the inability to censure. People like goss. Wagging your eyebrows to imply something definitely did happen - but you're too classy to release details - is not a insipid act.

lmkg 5y ago
The mod team is in a difficult position and are trying to thread a needle. * They actions they have taken have publicly-visible consequences, so they must publicly acknowledge it * They want to be respectful, and so minimize the amount of information they make public * They believe the Core team acts in bad faith. So whatever public statement they make, they must anticipate being attacked for it and pre-emptively defend themselves. That's a difficult set of objectives to try to meet simultaneously. I'm going to choose to support they way they've handled it, even if I don't 100% agree with it, because I don't think a perfect solution is possible.
JohnBooty 5y ago
They are dragging more into the public sphere than necessary That's a bold claim. For you to accurately make that claim, you'd need to know every other piece of the story that lead to this point and lead them to feel that this public statement was their only remaining choice.
- dogleash 5y ago
  I was replying to someone who said the content of the resignation was a refusal to drag drama into the public. I did not say dragging it into public was a bad tactic for accomplishing their goals. >you'd need to know every other piece of the story that lead to this point and lead them to feel that this public statement was their only remaining choice. No I wouldn't. I will stand by my claim that they said more than necessary to raise the structural issues they perceive in Rust's governance. They very well may need to say more than that - or even more than they did say - to see their desired changes to the governance system enacted. Not what I was responding to.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    "I don't know the story, nor any of the events leading up to this point, but I am convinced that one side is handling it wrong!"
    - intelfx 5y ago
      Ironically, that's exactly what the moderation team seems to insinuate with their "extreme skepticism" claim. "You don't know the story, we won't tell any of the events leading up to this point, but you better be sure that these people on the core team are wrong!"
      - JohnBooty 5y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree that "don't trust XYZ, they'll probably lie, but I can't tell you any more about it" is... very non-ideal. There are some situations in life where there just aren't any good choices. It's possible that this may have been one of them. What would you do if you felt that you had to walk away from a bad situation on a public project, and had strong reason to believe that the other party would attempt to publicly misrepresent the situation? You could remain silent, but we're talking about the court of public opinion here and we know silence is often interpreted as guilt, or at least irresponsibility. It would also allow the other party to continue creating this "bad situation" without, at the least, giving future moderators some warning. Likely, the mod team would have faced similar criticism had they simply walked away silently. Presumably, the members of the mod team are interested in maintaining their own reputations and would like to continue working in this field.
Aeolun 5y ago
> They could have kept the statement confined to disagreement with the government structure. Leave it ambiguous between whether it was a theoretical weakness in the structure, or a practical one. Nobody resigns over a theoretical flaw in the governance structure. It’s only when it starts becoming a problem that people do so.

lmkg 5y ago

The mod team is in a difficult position and are trying to thread a needle. * They actions they have taken have publicly-visible consequences, so they must publicly acknowledge it * They want to be respectful, and so minimize the amount of information they make public * They believe the Core team acts in bad faith. So whatever public statement they make, they must anticipate being attacked for it and pre-emptively defend themselves. That's a difficult set of objectives to try to meet simultaneously. I'm going to choose to support they way they've handled it, even if I don't 100% agree with it, because I don't think a perfect solution is possible.

JohnBooty 5y ago

They are dragging more into the public sphere than necessary That's a bold claim. For you to accurately make that claim, you'd need to know every other piece of the story that lead to this point and lead them to feel that this public statement was their only remaining choice.

dogleash 5y ago
I was replying to someone who said the content of the resignation was a refusal to drag drama into the public. I did not say dragging it into public was a bad tactic for accomplishing their goals. >you'd need to know every other piece of the story that lead to this point and lead them to feel that this public statement was their only remaining choice. No I wouldn't. I will stand by my claim that they said more than necessary to raise the structural issues they perceive in Rust's governance. They very well may need to say more than that - or even more than they did say - to see their desired changes to the governance system enacted. Not what I was responding to.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  "I don't know the story, nor any of the events leading up to this point, but I am convinced that one side is handling it wrong!"
  - intelfx 5y ago
    Ironically, that's exactly what the moderation team seems to insinuate with their "extreme skepticism" claim. "You don't know the story, we won't tell any of the events leading up to this point, but you better be sure that these people on the core team are wrong!"
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree that "don't trust XYZ, they'll probably lie, but I can't tell you any more about it" is... very non-ideal. There are some situations in life where there just aren't any good choices. It's possible that this may have been one of them. What would you do if you felt that you had to walk away from a bad situation on a public project, and had strong reason to believe that the other party would attempt to publicly misrepresent the situation? You could remain silent, but we're talking about the court of public opinion here and we know silence is often interpreted as guilt, or at least irresponsibility. It would also allow the other party to continue creating this "bad situation" without, at the least, giving future moderators some warning. Likely, the mod team would have faced similar criticism had they simply walked away silently. Presumably, the members of the mod team are interested in maintaining their own reputations and would like to continue working in this field.

Aeolun 5y ago

> They could have kept the statement confined to disagreement with the government structure. Leave it ambiguous between whether it was a theoretical weakness in the structure, or a practical one. Nobody resigns over a theoretical flaw in the governance structure. It’s only when it starts becoming a problem that people do so.