4 ms·

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

xienze 4y ago
> or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith. How are either of those things determined? “Bad faith” seems to be a tool used to dismiss accusations without any objective basis, and determining if a claim is fraudulent may very well depend on the accused being able to rebut a claim based on knowing who the accuser in question is.
cld8483 4y ago
Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend themselves. Such systems are weapons created by and for bureaucrats to cement their power.
- erosenbe0 4y ago
  Mostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.
- rebeccaskinner 4y ago
  > If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    Then maybe I go a step farther if the violation I commit is so innocuous as to be incapable of identifying a pool of possible victims of this violation; unless the victim themselves self selects to report that they were harmed by the violation. Doesn't that indicate that maybe I didn't actually do anything that bad?
- Clubber 4y ago
  That's a really good point. The only counter would be the Catholic Church child molestation scandal. There were so many victims, I think hiding the accuser would have value. I admit that is an extreme circumstance.

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

xienze 4y ago

> or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith. How are either of those things determined? “Bad faith” seems to be a tool used to dismiss accusations without any objective basis, and determining if a claim is fraudulent may very well depend on the accused being able to rebut a claim based on knowing who the accuser in question is.

cld8483 4y ago

Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend themselves. Such systems are weapons created by and for bureaucrats to cement their power.

erosenbe0 4y ago
Mostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.
rebeccaskinner 4y ago
> If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Then maybe I go a step farther if the violation I commit is so innocuous as to be incapable of identifying a pool of possible victims of this violation; unless the victim themselves self selects to report that they were harmed by the violation. Doesn't that indicate that maybe I didn't actually do anything that bad?
Clubber 4y ago
That's a really good point. The only counter would be the Catholic Church child molestation scandal. There were so many victims, I think hiding the accuser would have value. I admit that is an extreme circumstance.