[js8]

You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.

[bluebarbet]

>You're wrong

As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.

[staplers]

Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..

[classified]

> it's an important step in maintaining fairness.

When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.

[js8]

Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness.

And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences.

It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences.

But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)

[wizzwizz4]

If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.

[anigbrowl]

What are you going to seek consequences for, if there isn't sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring?

We already know what bad stuff is being done

This is a witch-finding mentality: witchcraft exists, I suspect this person of being a witch, therefore burning them at the stake is justified.

[spongebobstoes]

transparency is knowledge, and is a prerequisite for accountability