Tim Peters (@tim.one), in post 3:

I think there’s some confusion over language here. Best I can tell, “soft moderation” is industry-standard language for gimmicks (whether automated or manual) that attach “warnings” to posts without actually removing then.

See, when I replied in that thread, I was under the impression that “soft moderation” meant replying to people (in the original thread) in a way that was meant to convey “you wrote something problematic; please fix it” without overtly saying so (and certainly not in an Official Moderator Voice).

So now I have to conclude that there’s a serious issue with clear communication from the SC here. It’s already bad enough that we weren’t initially told (and technically are still only inferring, I think?) that there were already names up for consideration for delisting via this process. (Contra your apparent position in the original thread, this realization makes me extremely anxious. The last thing I want to hear from a governing body that’s seeking the power to pass judgement in secret, replacing an actually auditable procedure because it would be too difficult to enact, is an intimation that they see themselves as having “unfinished business”.)

Tim Peters (@tim.one), in post 5:

… I have a weird impression that naming names in any context is somehow frowned on here. So I’ll neither confirm nor deny. I’ll just say that the person I have in mind earned a relevant doctorate degree. If the shoe fits … leap to your own hasty conclusion :wink:.

… And yet you still use this emoji, in this environment of heightened caution. (Forgive me; I am not yet so brave.)