What do you mean by rejecting someone entirely, and why does it entail not talking to them when you’d find this helpful? Is this about
punishment through the psychological effects of social isolation?
punishment through some other effect of social isolation?
concern about being manipulated?
a “good guy” talking to a “bad guy” may be helpful, but a “bad guy” talking to another “bad guy” lets them coordinate to do bad things, therefore we apply social pressure to prevent anyone from talking to someone we’ve identified as a “bad guy”?
some other consideration / model I’m missing?
I agree that there’s a difference in the social dynamics of being vigilant about mistakes vs being vigilant about intentions. I agree with your point in the sense that worlds in which the community is skeptical of OP’s intentions tend to have worse social dynamics than worlds in which it isn’t.
But you seem to be implying something beyond that; that people should be less skeptical of OP’s intentions given the evidence we see right now, and/or that people should be more hesitant to express that skepticism. Am I understanding you correctly, and what’s your reasoning here?
My intuition is that a norm against expressing skepticism of orgs’ intentions wouldn’t usefully reduce community skepticism, because community members can just see this norm and infer that there’s probably some private skepticism (just like I update when reading your comment and the tone of the rest of the thread). And without open communication, community members’ level of skepticism will be noisier (for example, Nuño starting out much more trusting and deferential than the EA average before he started looking into this).