3 ms·

With what was quoted downthread, they impugned the reputation of the core team, maybe justly, without providing justification. They also haven’t made a case fo

With what was quoted downthread, they impugned the reputation of the core team, maybe justly, without providing justification. They also haven’t made a case for why the core team needs to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline.

CRConrad 5y ago
1) Not sure what you mean by "what was quoted downthread", but assuming it was the bit about [paraphrased] "take whatever anyone on the core team says with a large grain of salt": At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" -- whoever did whatever it was. They're just not saying who that was, so you can't know whom on the core team to trust. Which means that unless and until you do, you need to mistrust what any or all of them say(s). As soon as one realises how this logic works, one realises that this is (at least not intentionally!) impugning anyone's reputation, but just an unfortunate consequence of their trying to protect the anonymity of the involved. 2) Why should they have to make a case for that? If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  > Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason. Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. > If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline? That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design. > At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies. And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. Of course not. Because it didn't need to be made. > there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to. They do need to explain why they shouldn't be under the same moderation as everyone else. Any "surface area" (???) one could possibly need to establish that was certainly there in the moderation team's resignation.

CRConrad 5y ago

1) Not sure what you mean by "what was quoted downthread", but assuming it was the bit about [paraphrased] "take whatever anyone on the core team says with a large grain of salt": At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" -- whoever did whatever it was. They're just not saying who that was, so you can't know whom on the core team to trust. Which means that unless and until you do, you need to mistrust what any or all of them say(s). As soon as one realises how this logic works, one realises that this is (at least not intentionally!) impugning anyone's reputation, but just an unfortunate consequence of their trying to protect the anonymity of the involved. 2) Why should they have to make a case for that? If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?

CheezeIt 5y ago
> Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason. Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. > If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline? That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design. > At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies. And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. Of course not. Because it didn't need to be made. > there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to. They do need to explain why they shouldn't be under the same moderation as everyone else. Any "surface area" (???) one could possibly need to establish that was certainly there in the moderation team's resignation.