We should be using this as an opportunity to learn as a collective. Maybe the rule is worded in a way that protects individuals and organizations using the forum to deceive while punishing the people willing to call others out, even if using widely and publicly shared information.
Laws often evolve due to changes in values, technology, awareness, and unforeseen circumstances. Maybe this is a situation that requires a revision of the rule? Many people have been victims of wrongful convictions and unjust incarceration because the laws in place were ambiguous, contorted, or when conflicting precedents exist. We don’t have to move at the same pace as governments as we build the new frontier.
It’s unfortunate that this situation has become a distraction from the issues I was highlighting: Lack of impact/ alignment with OP and the potential for collusion the badgeholder nomination created.
I understand this is a personal issue for you @Gonna.eth and don’t take offense to your insistence. I will point out that seeing that badge next to your name while you attack community members is not a great look for the collective, Grants Council and GovNerds.
I argued that someone who never showed alignment or impact for Optimism and only created a governance profile to accept a badge was cause for concern (spent 12 minutes in the forum). You’re shaming new members because they only read 4 hours. Which one seems more unreasonable here?
I stand by my rebuttal on this case. I’m not Snowden or Assange here. The rule is being used to obscure the real issues.