Shedding light on a three-month suspension

[mcdonc (Chris McDonough)]

@rtpg

@mcdonc

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Don’t name names, as other people have mentioned.

Some more imagination here is possible:

• The specific complaint could in fact be tied back to a person based on the exact text of the complaint (and thus you’re falling back on simply presenting the rephrased complaint, which is what is already present)
• The specific complaint could be related to a private interaction (for example a DM interaction)

Now, I don’t really have a great argument for “somebody complained about specific public posts, and Tim is comfortable with those being revealed” except for the moderation-related “now we are litigating whether this post ‘is offensive’ by some given metrics”.

I personally do not think any formal complaints by civilians were made (the SC does not need any to suspend anyone, and the relations of the infractions themselves were so strange and beyond any plausible reading save the posting-too-much one that they seemed to have come from a single someone), and I don’t think anything about this particular case is so sensitive that identities of complainers couldn’t be protected even if there were, but it doesn’t really matter now. What matters is the public perception of the process in the future. The SC and the CoC WG should follow their own rules in order to improve that perception, and acknowledge that they were not followed in this case.

@rtpg

I do wonder about what interactions could have been taken pre-ban to try and give Tim an opportunity to adjust, but in the hypothetical where this is related to private interactions, I do not believe there is much to be done here. Having Tim know who reported him is an obvious problem generator[0].

I would agree with you if:

• I thought any civilian had reported Tim.
• I didn’t think identities could not be obscured in some response.
• The SC and CoC WG had followed their own rules.