3 ms·
I doubt that. More likely people are just motivated to interpret it negatively because it supports their point if they do.
by wilg 3y ago
I doubt that. More likely people are just motivated to interpret it negatively because it supports their point if they do.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agomost people would say on-call or responsible-for, both having vastly different connotations than accountable. saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate. in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either). accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence. saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not. it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.