There’s no inconsistency here—it’s explicitly in the post that anonymity and pseudonymity have value, but there should be a verification mechanism to ensure a lack of abuse. Especially when significant unverifiable non-public accusations are being made.
I would be happy to verify myself if some procedures were introduced, even though I only was relating positions related to known facts rather than spreading gossip and judgments about the merits of others’ research, culture, personal integrity, and so forth.
I’m not saying definitively that Omega is a bad faith actor—but were someone operating as a bad faith actor who wanted plausible deniability, their strategy would look a lot like Omega’s.
There’s no inconsistency here—it’s explicitly in the post that anonymity and pseudonymity have value, but there should be a verification mechanism to ensure a lack of abuse. Especially when significant unverifiable non-public accusations are being made.
I would be happy to verify myself if some procedures were introduced, even though I only was relating positions related to known facts rather than spreading gossip and judgments about the merits of others’ research, culture, personal integrity, and so forth.
I’m not saying definitively that Omega is a bad faith actor—but were someone operating as a bad faith actor who wanted plausible deniability, their strategy would look a lot like Omega’s.