I expect the path for reinstatement will be like the old prosecutor question:
Yes, or no, have you stopped beating your wife?
It may be blatant, but may be subtle, "I promise to stop violating...", "I will never again violate...", etc. which will require a subtle confession and admission of guilt, reinforcing the defamation.
I can imagine something like the following:
SE: Here, just agree that you will stop and we will reinstate you. M: Stop what? You haven't told anyone includng me SPECIFICALLY what I did to violate the CoC. SE: It was all in the TL so we can't make it public. M: Fine, send me a highlighted or annotated transcript showing where I violated the CoC. SE: Why can't you just agree to our kind offer of reinstatement so everyone can move on?
Any kind of apology will be seen as an admission of guilt.
You have to decide, but if I were you: Don't give them any quarter because they will spin it as "Monica admits guilt!". Demand they retract their libel or prove it. Or reinstate you and use their own stated procedure for removal if they still want you gone.
Maybe some people had their feeling hurt, but we are not telepaths nor empaths, especially over the internet. The reason they like CoCs to be ambiguous even only in the enforcment is because it shifts the proof from "You said X which is hurtful" to "They said they felt hurt when you said X". And anyone can be "they" and claim anything is hurtful. Even worse when someone is acting as a white knight on behalf of a "they" which they assume is being hurt without any actual person saying so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Kafka Trap Ahead?
Date: 2019-10-16 12:30 pm (UTC)Yes, or no, have you stopped beating your wife?
It may be blatant, but may be subtle, "I promise to stop violating...", "I will never again violate...", etc. which will require a subtle confession and admission of guilt, reinforcing the defamation.
I can imagine something like the following:
SE: Here, just agree that you will stop and we will reinstate you.
M: Stop what? You haven't told anyone includng me SPECIFICALLY what I did to violate the CoC.
SE: It was all in the TL so we can't make it public.
M: Fine, send me a highlighted or annotated transcript showing where I violated the CoC.
SE: Why can't you just agree to our kind offer of reinstatement so everyone can move on?
Any kind of apology will be seen as an admission of guilt.
You have to decide, but if I were you: Don't give them any quarter because they will spin it as "Monica admits guilt!". Demand they retract their libel or prove it. Or reinstate you and use their own stated procedure for removal if they still want you gone.
Maybe some people had their feeling hurt, but we are not telepaths nor empaths, especially over the internet. The reason they like CoCs to be ambiguous even only in the enforcment is because it shifts the proof from "You said X which is hurtful" to "They said they felt hurt when you said X". And anyone can be "they" and claim anything is hurtful. Even worse when someone is acting as a white knight on behalf of a "they" which they assume is being hurt without any actual person saying so.