I didn't say which of the four moderators did it. That admission would only be made by agreement of a majority of the board. I already admitted that I myself forgot and didn't address it proactively to prevent this from happening; it can be inferred that the other mods forgot as well.
We agreed that ban reasons are public information and they have always been accessible. What we forgot is to have civility and judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons.
Swampy - this response makes no sense, at least to me. For one thing, as Logical as you usually are: Why did you "Forget civility & judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons" ?
CIAMM has admitted performing the deletion and ban. The fact is that, in all the other things we were checking to ensure our public actions were circumspect, we never got to consider for policy's sake the public nature of the ban notes and to establish an agreement as to limitations on the ban language that would be used. And that's my fault, as it should have been actively addressed rather than passively permitted to continue without policy.
re "Thank you for pointing that out. The first answer I can give you
obviously a moderator who forgot about the ban reason appearing in the public log." - So where is the Transparency??
I didn't say which of the four moderators did it. That admission would only be made by agreement of a majority of the board. I already admitted that I myself forgot and didn't address it proactively to prevent this from happening; it can be inferred that the other mods forgot as well.
We agreed that ban reasons are public information and they have always been accessible. What we forgot is to have civility and judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons.
Swampy - this response makes no sense, at least to me. For one thing, as Logical as you usually are: Why did you "Forget civility & judicious statement of the case within the ban reasons" ?
CIAMM has admitted performing the deletion and ban. The fact is that, in all the other things we were checking to ensure our public actions were circumspect, we never got to consider for policy's sake the public nature of the ban notes and to establish an agreement as to limitations on the ban language that would be used. And that's my fault, as it should have been actively addressed rather than passively permitted to continue without policy.