Looks like I've failed in my quest but the person who can extract a straight answer out of you will be the next ruler of England.
Maybe so. Good news is I came to Lemmy tonight with plenty of time to waste.
You'll find out if you bother to read any of what I wrote. I hope for your sake that you're being deliberately obtuse here.
Guess that's a yes on my most recent question so thank you for the indirect answer and I'll do my best to make it as clear as I can.
OP made a post about the actions of a community moderator ("mod") for [email protected]. In your top-level comment on OP's post within the AskLemmy community on the lemmy.world instance, you said the following:
You will never get an answer from the mods of that instance.
My reply to you was a question about whether you may have meant:
You will never get an answer from the mods of that community.
Or:
You will never get an answer from the administrators of that instance.
I'm asking whether you think OP's question in the last line of the post we're commenting on (i.e. "By the way, what’s wrong with you, mods?") is directed at the moderators of the community who made the decision to remove the previous post or administrators of the instance who, so far, do not appear to be involved in the discussion at all. Please note that instance administrators and community moderators are different sets of people.
Yes. I was replying to your comment that mentions instance mods and asking whether you are talking about instance admins or community mods. Will I need to reiterate my question a third time for you to understand?
Are you talking about instance admins or community mods?
OP's removed post was in [email protected], the same community as the post we're commenting on now. AskLemmy does not have that rule.
I'd recommend looking up The Innocence Project to see examples of cases where false accusations result in convictions but you're already familiar with their work.
I don't equate the lack of conviction for the attacker with a separate conviction for false reporting by the accuser but it'd be a valid concern on top of the many other reasons someone might choose to stay silent. Many attackers may be content to escape with a "not guilty" ruling if the prosecution isn't able to prove their case but some are certain to try and hit back through the legal system even when they know the truth of the matter. Not sure I'd roll the dice on a true (but hard to prove) claim if it opened me up to further victimization.
Didn't want to deprive you of the joy of making another hundred square kilometers of fuckery. Besides, isn't there that one spot you think you'll be able to rebuild better, maybe a little cleaner and more organized?
Could that be (at least partially) explained by those companies looking at a long-term treatment as the more realistic goal after being burned by proposed cures in the past? Lots of quacks out there offer a quick cure, not as many say up front that their product will need a prolonged period of use. Not saying you and yours fit that label but their bullshit tips the signal-to-noise ratio in an unfavorable direction for both relief-seekers and providers.
I don't know your field, team's reputation or the companies you've been in contact with though so of course it could be the simple greed motivation too.