h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't have all the answers, but questions have never been in short supply as they buzz around my brain.

Making a public statement to the effect that an entire department is to be dismantled and replaced sends the message that the people in the department were not doing a good job. In the context of a business or government agency, workers often have the protection of severance packages, out-placement services, and perhaps unemployment insurance until they get back on their feet. You could say that, as bad as being displaced might be, at least you're paid to suffer [probably the payment is inadequate, but at least you can go t0nthe bank while you cry]. Volunteers don't have these protections. Worse, the implications of poor work might be harmful for future prospects.

This is one of the reasons why tact was invented. The announcement itself had several tactful touches, so I'm going to say that it was mostly tactful. "Mostly" doesn't help a lot as a qualifier, though, i.e. the earth is mostly harmless, my daughter is mostly virtuous, my defendant is mostly innocent. It's human nature to be suspicious about what was left out, to the extent that nothing remains of the main adjective.

Did the moderators want the change? Nothing is said about that. It's human nature to assume that, in the absence of any evidence, they probably didn't, or that would have been noted in the announcement.

Defense lawyers have known for years that the general public has a slight bias against government agencies and corporations when they seem to be walking all over the little guy. NPL seems to have mostly been virtuous, particularly in the sense that they rescued H2G2 from oblivion when the BBC could no longer keep it going. Let me also say, in an effort to be even-handed, that H2G2 researchers were not expected to do the work of moderators while under the BBC's aegis.

There is much that I do not know about this situation, and I trust that if I have large bits of it wrong, some kind soul will hopefully step in and set me right. All I have to work with is what I can see.

Re post 1:

I have just as many answers as you, paulh: That is nada, zilch, nil and a lot of other synonyms

But I do have a few comments:

1. "...sends the message that the people in the department were not doing a good job..."
Not necessarily. Extraneous factors may make it necessary to dissolve even extremely well w*rking departments.

2. "Did the moderators want the change? ... It's human nature to assume that, in the absence of any evidence, they probably didn't, or that would have been noted in the announcement."
Again: Not necessarily. And since we don't know who the new mods are you might just as well assume that at least some of them are now w*rking within the new system.

Your second point occurred to me, too. I have no problem with some, all, or most of the previous moderators being reappointed. The idea of the rest of us not knowing who the mods are is a pretty good idea, I think . I just want people to feel good about what they're doing.

That makes two of us

I think so many people feel this way that we'd need several to carry all of them.