Forgive me, but you are issuing a moderation notice about the comment section, when the main post involves the most egregious possible retaliation against a critic of an organisation, which you have personally backed up in the comments. I would have thought your position should be to criticise the egregious retaliation in harsh terms
Yeah I think we are talking past each other. Will posted in response to my comment that Kat’s post is not deranged. He has subsequently said we should avoid aggression or confusion. The context here is that kat retaliated to Ben’s critique by calling him abusive/predatory. This is clearly unacceptable conduct for the forum, but has not been noted been criticised. Why?
Forgive me, but you are issuing a moderation notice about the comment section, when the main post involves the most egregious possible retaliation against a critic of an organisation, which you have personally backed up in the comments. I would have thought your position should be to criticise the egregious retaliation in harsh terms
The intention is not to endorse the quoted paragraph, but to ask people not to deanonymize Alice/Chloe. In line with our policies on revealing personal information on the Forum
Yeah I think we are talking past each other. Will posted in response to my comment that Kat’s post is not deranged. He has subsequently said we should avoid aggression or confusion. The context here is that kat retaliated to Ben’s critique by calling him abusive/predatory. This is clearly unacceptable conduct for the forum, but has not been noted been criticised. Why?