[mellosouls]

Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling, although it's late and a response to the snowballing community reaction rather than because it's the right thing to do.

Of course, it's possible that that reaction has prompted genuine reflection and contrition and the apology is sincere as well as a panic measure.

[protomyth]

Groveling isn't an apology. If you ever have to make an apology of this type, always apologize to individuals before groups and before stating your mission. It reads better and gives the impression you care about the person. Also, undo what you did if you can, otherwise it's "sorry, not sorry".

[mellosouls]

A grovelling apology is certainly an apology, even if sometimes unseemly and issued in desperation rather than (or in addition to) regret.

But sure, there might be better ways to do it.

[protomyth]

A grovelling apology is certainly an apology

Well, yes by definition, but groveling is not, in and of itself, an apology. Generally in an apology you undo what damage you did to the maximum extent allowable or offer some sort of compensation.

[joshuamorton]

That is not how any apology I've heard of has ever worked. Apologies are an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or of pain caused, usually combined with an attempt to avoid the same wrongdoing in the future.

All of that is evident here. Actions to make right a prior wrong (of which there are some here too) are not normally a requirement, although they can apology.

[protomyth]

I guess I was taught differently. Apologies without positive action are hollow. Repentance requires positive steps and attempts to fix and undo the harm you have caused. How can a person truly trust an apology has meaning when harm is left in place?

[joshuamorton]

Positive action need not be to fix what has already happened. Steps to prevent a repetition are still positive action, and imo do more to instill confidence that a behavior won't be repeated than an attempt to fix the existing mess.

Not to say that one shouldn't do both, but often it isn't possible to fix something you're apologizing for. That doesn't make sincere apology impossible.

[lawtalkinghuman]

It really isn't.

The former is redress and the latter is compensation. One of the great problems with the legal process is often all it can give is compensation and no apology, and often people really do want an apology.

The fear of being held legally liable for giving a simple apology is why various legislatures have recently passed laws that make it so apologies or assistance do not amount to legal liability for negligence. UK example: the Compensation Act 2006 s2.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2

Knowing the difference between an apology, a form of redress and compensation is important because a process may give a person one thing when they really want another.

[mellosouls]

Not sure how this is relevant to my comments - I haven't used "grovelling" except to describe the apology.

[protomyth]

Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling

[mellosouls]

Disagree with the non-apology part - "I disagree with the 'non-apology' part of your comment"

It's clearly very grovelling - "the apology is clearly very grovelling".

I'll assume my comment confused you in some way due to me not typing every implied word or punctuation mark out (no snark intended - was on a phone), I can see that I suppose. Fair enough.