5 ms·

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.

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.