Again, we disagree. By even asking that question (suffixing an accusation with a question mark does not make it less of an accusation - something I'll beat the mainstream media over the head with to my dying breath), you're accusing the other person of taking an action in bad faith: retaliatory creation of a rule in direct response to reasonable criticism.
On top of that, it's unfalsifiable! How would he go about proving that the guideline update wasn't a result of anger over reception of his article?
Now, say that's actually correct. Okay, so? We can't have a substantive discussion how much of a villain you think someone might be. Indeed, the motivations behind the rule are unknown beyond what he tells us, and we can only speculate.
Groundless speculation does not make for very good discourse - hence why it's a bad idea to even go there.
What we can talk about all day long are the implications of that rule and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. There are plenty of arguments to be made there. Sam's motivations aside, since we don't know them, shouldn't even really enter into it.
We are actually very close to agreement here. I agree, it is an accusatory question.
Do you see how you've reduced the relevance of Sam's motivations to whether or not discussion of them is well grounded?
I'm simply saying that it is anyone's right to argue that a criticism is grounded, just as it's anyone's right to contest that criticism.
So it's fair for you to say "I don't think Sam's motivations are relevant" and then go on to engage discussion of what we all think Sam's motivations are and how that does or doesn't inform his actions. (Supposing, of course, that I had made a more thorough argument instead of alluding to a hypothetical starting point for one.)
But it's not fair to take this guideline and say "This is unacceptable because it is criticism," which is what jseliger did.
It is not the inflammatory nature of a comment that makes it acceptable or unacceptable. You're trying to set up a filter on what's acceptable that is affected by what you personally believe.
And when anyone in a position of power tries to set rules on discourse, we have every right to examine what that does to the shape of discourse.
On top of that, it's unfalsifiable! How would he go about proving that the guideline update wasn't a result of anger over reception of his article?
Now, say that's actually correct. Okay, so? We can't have a substantive discussion how much of a villain you think someone might be. Indeed, the motivations behind the rule are unknown beyond what he tells us, and we can only speculate.
Groundless speculation does not make for very good discourse - hence why it's a bad idea to even go there.
What we can talk about all day long are the implications of that rule and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. There are plenty of arguments to be made there. Sam's motivations aside, since we don't know them, shouldn't even really enter into it.