| I think we’re mostly in agreement. The ban is clearly the trigger, and it’s pretty transparent. > For all you and me know, said review will say their processes are just fine which I would personally disagree with but it could happen. Agreed. For what it’s worth, I don’t actually think there’s much they can really do besides acknowledge it and make sure their ethics board is competent and consulted. > the ban is the focus – not what led to the ban I was talking about the ban being the focus of the statement, as it’s the point at which there’s a clear shift from the situation to the fix. This is unfortunate, because to me it is placing the emphasis on the trigger, rather than the cause. I believe it could have been written in a way that mentioned the ban, left room to investigate, but made it crystal clear that the community concerns and the ban were not the problem. It makes it feel to me as though their primary motivation to investigate is to get unbanned – which, to be fair, it probably is – rather than to be committed to root out alleged unethical practices. Even if the short-term consequences are the same, it’s a subtle but important distinction. I suppose it’s a form of honesty, and I could instead embrace its transparency. |