6 ms·

What exactly is 'mature' about making a vague accusation, refusing to substantiate it and claiming that if the other side says anything it would be a lie?

by gdy 5y ago

tinco 5y ago
The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated. Just not to you. Not to me either, and I think that's a good thing for now. No doubt whoever steps up to become the next mod team will be fully informed by both sides, and hopefully they can make an objective decision about what should and what should not be public. It is probably none of our business anyway. And it's not a claim that everything they would say would be a lie, it's just a warning. Given the severity of their actions, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that the warning is probably warranted or at least it feels warranted to them.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated. This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries.
  - tinco 5y ago
    Justice requires due process. This announcement was made two hours ago. Everyone just wants to instant gratification and to know which party is right or wrong so they can feel good about their minds being made up. We are not the jury here, we're just a tool in their power struggle. They're explicitly not asking us to pass judgement, they're just asking for a new jury.
    - gdy 5y ago
      "they're just asking for a new jury" That's not what they did, obviously.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - delusional 5y ago
    You're neither the judge not the jury. They aren't trying to make the case to you. The case has (it seems) been made and resolved elsewhere. This is just a public statement saying they do not accept the resolution and therefore resign.
    - gdy 5y ago
      "just a public statement saying they do not accept the resolution and therefore resign" The statement is much more than that.
      - delusional 5y ago
        Is it? How would you respond if you were asked to take on a responsibility that you didn't have the authority to uphold? I think this is very sober and professional.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    Protecting people's privacy is a fundamental principle of justice, too. It's extremely common for court records in cases regarding people's conduct to be sealed. Forcing people to air all their dirty laundry in public, as the Puritans did, is not just, and tends to severely limit already-marginalized people's access to justice.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      I have been a lawyer for over a decade. In exactly one case that I've ever litigated or supervised has any of the evidence been placed under seal. What jurisdiction do you practice in, that you're seeing this so commonly?
      - dogleash 5y ago
        Using an innocuous sounding request for more information as a sly zinger? This guy lawyers.
      - onedognight 5y ago
        Juvenile court?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - juancb 5y ago
    Your argument is flawed since some amount of secrecy/discretion in judicial proceedings is allowed and necessary. For examples look to investigators and DAs who refuse to provide details for ongoing investigations, and closed proceedings. More importantly this is a problem in a private organization and not a public entity or court proceeding.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated. This is not about whatever the original "accusation" was; it's about process and structure. AIUI, the whole purpose of having a moderation team is so "dirty laundry" of that kind won't have to be aired in public and ruled on by an uninformed lynch mob. They're talking about not being able -- allowed -- to do their job, not the (irrelevant) details of one specific task of the job. > This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries. And this is a forum moderation team, not a court of law.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      >> This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries. > And this is a forum moderation team, not a court of law. Principles of justice apply everywhere. Suggesting they can't be criticized for being unjust, solely because they aren't a court of law... is quite bizarre.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        It's "a fundamental principle of justice" when "justice" is read in the sense of "law". Not necessarily otherwise. Principles of law apply in a court of law, not everywhere.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        No. There are many systems of law that are unjust. Just like the behavior you are defending. Any accusation "substantiated" in secret is not substantiated at all.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        A) The original "accusation" doesn't need to be "substantiated" in public, because that's not what this public part of the debate is about. It's about structures and processes, not whatever the original triggering incident may have been. B) So no case has ever been decided in closed court in your world, or if any have, they're all unsubstantiated? You need to get your mind out of its over-literal legalistic rut, because in the reality the rest of us live in that happens quite frequently, and much of the time we even trust that allegations made in such courts are substantiated even though they aren't made public. C) This is still not a "system of law" we're discussing. Try to understand the difference.
- gdy 5y ago
  "The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated" The public accusation is vague and is not substantiated. What is the reason for it to exist in the first place if not to put blame without giving a chance to refute it?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > The public accusation is vague and is not substantiated. You're confused about what the public accusation is. It's not about whatever shitty thing someone on the core team originally did; it's about process and structure. Their complaint was that the moderation team can't moderate the core team, because the latter claims not to be under the purview of the former. Does that really need further "substantiation"? And what's "vague" about it? And no, the details of the original shitty thing don't matter; the same (lack of?) process and structure would apply to any such incident involving one or more members of the core team. (How can any of this be so hard to understand???)
- bitwize 5y ago
  > The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated. Just not to you. Not to me either, and I think that's a good thing for now. Of course it's a good thing. It's part of the strategy behind this move. If (when) the accusation turns out to be a relative nothingburger, the Moderation Team would lose the moral authority and hence the power they think they command by going "well fine, we'll take our ball and go home". Better to let it be vague, so that the public can imagine serious violations that cast the Core Team's legitimacy into doubt.
mcguire 5y ago
What, exactly, would you do with the information?
aeturnum 5y ago
I can understand why this looks odd if you are not used to how professionals interact over process questions. This strikes me as very similar to how public companies 'fail' audits - which is to say that companies never really fail audits, they just have their auditors resign. The reason for this is that, when you hire people to validate a process, most of the failure states come from processes that you are unable to verify as good or bad. This doesn't always mean that something is wrong - it just means that the validation team (or the code of conduct team in this case) does not feel, in their opinion, that they can confidently render an opinion. This is important because, at the end of the day, all these teams can do is produce opinions. The obvious reaction is to suggest changes to the process that would allow you confidence in validation (these are called 'controls' in the auditing world). However, if the group you are trying to validate won't make your changes, then you are left in a situation where you can't be confident about doing your job. You aren't sure that anything is wrong exactly, but you are sure that the current setup won't allow you to be sure. You're faced with sitting in a situation where people expect you to validate a process, but you feel you can't - and so the only path is to resign. However, as you can tell, there's a chance that the problem is the process verification team. Maybe they are dumb, or jerks, or whatever. If they are jerks, then you both wouldn't be able to rely on their specific accusations and it is possible that they missed things because of rudeness or incompetence, etc. So either way the sensible thing to do is not make specific accusations aside from "we don't think we can verify this process and we would recommend you take what others say about why with a grain of salt."

What exactly is 'mature' about making a vague accusation, refusing to substantiate it and claiming that if the other side says anything it would be a lie?

by gdy 5y ago

What exactly is 'mature' about making a vague accusation, refusing to substantiate it and claiming that if the other side says anything it would be a lie?

tinco 5y ago

The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated. Just not to you. Not to me either, and I think that's a good thing for now. No doubt whoever steps up to become the next mod team will be fully informed by both sides, and hopefully they can make an objective decision about what should and what should not be public. It is probably none of our business anyway. And it's not a claim that everything they would say would be a lie, it's just a warning. Given the severity of their actions, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that the warning is probably warranted or at least it feels warranted to them.

torstenvl 5y ago
An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated. This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries.
- tinco 5y ago
  Justice requires due process. This announcement was made two hours ago. Everyone just wants to instant gratification and to know which party is right or wrong so they can feel good about their minds being made up. We are not the jury here, we're just a tool in their power struggle. They're explicitly not asking us to pass judgement, they're just asking for a new jury.
  - gdy 5y ago
    "they're just asking for a new jury" That's not what they did, obviously.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- delusional 5y ago
  You're neither the judge not the jury. They aren't trying to make the case to you. The case has (it seems) been made and resolved elsewhere. This is just a public statement saying they do not accept the resolution and therefore resign.
  - gdy 5y ago
    "just a public statement saying they do not accept the resolution and therefore resign" The statement is much more than that.
    - delusional 5y ago
      Is it? How would you respond if you were asked to take on a responsibility that you didn't have the authority to uphold? I think this is very sober and professional.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  Protecting people's privacy is a fundamental principle of justice, too. It's extremely common for court records in cases regarding people's conduct to be sealed. Forcing people to air all their dirty laundry in public, as the Puritans did, is not just, and tends to severely limit already-marginalized people's access to justice.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    I have been a lawyer for over a decade. In exactly one case that I've ever litigated or supervised has any of the evidence been placed under seal. What jurisdiction do you practice in, that you're seeing this so commonly?
    - dogleash 5y ago
      Using an innocuous sounding request for more information as a sly zinger? This guy lawyers.
    - onedognight 5y ago
      Juvenile court?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- juancb 5y ago
  Your argument is flawed since some amount of secrecy/discretion in judicial proceedings is allowed and necessary. For examples look to investigators and DAs who refuse to provide details for ongoing investigations, and closed proceedings. More importantly this is a problem in a private organization and not a public entity or court proceeding.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated. This is not about whatever the original "accusation" was; it's about process and structure. AIUI, the whole purpose of having a moderation team is so "dirty laundry" of that kind won't have to be aired in public and ruled on by an uninformed lynch mob. They're talking about not being able -- allowed -- to do their job, not the (irrelevant) details of one specific task of the job. > This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries. And this is a forum moderation team, not a court of law.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    >> This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries. > And this is a forum moderation team, not a court of law. Principles of justice apply everywhere. Suggesting they can't be criticized for being unjust, solely because they aren't a court of law... is quite bizarre.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      It's "a fundamental principle of justice" when "justice" is read in the sense of "law". Not necessarily otherwise. Principles of law apply in a court of law, not everywhere.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        No. There are many systems of law that are unjust. Just like the behavior you are defending. Any accusation "substantiated" in secret is not substantiated at all.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        A) The original "accusation" doesn't need to be "substantiated" in public, because that's not what this public part of the debate is about. It's about structures and processes, not whatever the original triggering incident may have been. B) So no case has ever been decided in closed court in your world, or if any have, they're all unsubstantiated? You need to get your mind out of its over-literal legalistic rut, because in the reality the rest of us live in that happens quite frequently, and much of the time we even trust that allegations made in such courts are substantiated even though they aren't made public. C) This is still not a "system of law" we're discussing. Try to understand the difference.
gdy 5y ago
"The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated" The public accusation is vague and is not substantiated. What is the reason for it to exist in the first place if not to put blame without giving a chance to refute it?
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > The public accusation is vague and is not substantiated. You're confused about what the public accusation is. It's not about whatever shitty thing someone on the core team originally did; it's about process and structure. Their complaint was that the moderation team can't moderate the core team, because the latter claims not to be under the purview of the former. Does that really need further "substantiation"? And what's "vague" about it? And no, the details of the original shitty thing don't matter; the same (lack of?) process and structure would apply to any such incident involving one or more members of the core team. (How can any of this be so hard to understand???)
bitwize 5y ago
> The accusation is not vague and it was substantiated. Just not to you. Not to me either, and I think that's a good thing for now. Of course it's a good thing. It's part of the strategy behind this move. If (when) the accusation turns out to be a relative nothingburger, the Moderation Team would lose the moral authority and hence the power they think they command by going "well fine, we'll take our ball and go home". Better to let it be vague, so that the public can imagine serious violations that cast the Core Team's legitimacy into doubt.

mcguire 5y ago

What, exactly, would you do with the information?

aeturnum 5y ago

I can understand why this looks odd if you are not used to how professionals interact over process questions. This strikes me as very similar to how public companies 'fail' audits - which is to say that companies never really fail audits, they just have their auditors resign. The reason for this is that, when you hire people to validate a process, most of the failure states come from processes that you are unable to verify as good or bad. This doesn't always mean that something is wrong - it just means that the validation team (or the code of conduct team in this case) does not feel, in their opinion, that they can confidently render an opinion. This is important because, at the end of the day, all these teams can do is produce opinions. The obvious reaction is to suggest changes to the process that would allow you confidence in validation (these are called 'controls' in the auditing world). However, if the group you are trying to validate won't make your changes, then you are left in a situation where you can't be confident about doing your job. You aren't sure that anything is wrong exactly, but you are sure that the current setup won't allow you to be sure. You're faced with sitting in a situation where people expect you to validate a process, but you feel you can't - and so the only path is to resign. However, as you can tell, there's a chance that the problem is the process verification team. Maybe they are dumb, or jerks, or whatever. If they are jerks, then you both wouldn't be able to rely on their specific accusations and it is possible that they missed things because of rudeness or incompetence, etc. So either way the sensible thing to do is not make specific accusations aside from "we don't think we can verify this process and we would recommend you take what others say about why with a grain of salt."