I do apologise for saying offender, it was the wrong word to use there, but I think the context of the rest of my post made it clear the meaning was not meant to say that they were automatically guilty (although at the point in proceedings I was referring to was where their name had been released to the public and you'd hope that guilt would be established by that point beyond reasonable doubt, at which point, the legal terminology does change from accused to offender).
The exact context there of using the term I was actually saying it was imperative that the accused has a voice to refute those allegations if you read on (I'm not sure if you did as you snipped off my email straight afterwards?). -- Michael C On 5 January 2016 at 03:22, Bishop Bettini <bis...@php.net> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2016 10:00 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:31, Michael Cullum <m...@michaelcullum.com> wrote: > > > > > > Huge +1 to this for the reasons stated both by Eli about why it should > > > exist, and the reasons mentioned by Ferenc in that it's not giving out > new > > > powers, but adding accountability to the use of those powers. I do > think > > > however there is some fine tuning that could be done. > > > > > > 1) When a summary report is posted, the offender should be given the > > > > The "offender"? Not "the accused", not "the alleged offender", not "the > presumed innocent until proven guilty", but "the offender". *This* is why > the RFC is awful, horrible, anti-free-speech, etc. It abides no concept of > liberty to speak. > > > > The RFC is virtue-signaling for a particular political persuasion, and > nothing more. > > > > It does serve one useful purpose: to help identify who wants to be an > authoritarian and shut down speech from others. > > Not really. I also chafe at the egregious "offender" language, but I do not > share your contempt for this RFC. I am in fact +1. Every long standing > collaborative system adopts, uses, and sheds rules of conduct to suit its > real and perceived challenges. We're in the adoption stage, after shedding > Rasmus' quick rules that Ferenc referenced. I feel there are good things > in this RFC, and certainly some details that need refinement. > Constructive, desenting input is neccesary to sharpen the instrument from > its blunt, rough form. Bring it on. >
