Comment by LegitShady
5 years ago
that only makes it more likely they're helping more important people more frequently and to a greater degree.
5 years ago
that only makes it more likely they're helping more important people more frequently and to a greater degree.
By that logic, there's really nothing generous dang can do that isn't further proof of his perfidy.
Indeed once you understand that the moderators are helping people with brand management and suggestions at the very least, and the extent to which this occurs is hidden, they lose the ability to claim neutrality and open themselves up to lots of questions about what else they're doing
That's a result of actions taken not some kind of theoretical argument.
> open themselves up to lots of questions about what else they are doing
Is there a name for this pattern?
1. Observe that a human is taking some action to more effectively do their jobs… but in a way that has some risk of being unevenly applied or also self-beneficial.
2. Conclude that this action is itself malfeasance.
3. Conclude that this person merits generalized distrust.
I see this all the time in comments on (for example) youtube. I struggle to see how social cohesion could survive in a world where more people do this: If you lose trust by doing your job well, then its harder to motivate yourself to maintain others’ trust that you’ll do your job.
6 replies →
There are wheels within wheels in this village, and fires within fires! When Reverend Hale comes, you will proceed to look for signs of witchcraft here.
You mean he ought to spend his limited time picking random comments from unimportant people that noone wants to read and help edit those comments, so that the world becomes more fair and just?
Sounds like a recipe for a successful forum.