> I didn't mean to imply bad intent

> I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose

You didn't imply bad intent, you outright suggested it.

He means he doesn't say it was necessarily bad intent, but mentions it as a possibility ("thinking out loud").

I could've phrased it better.

You could rewrite it a 1000 times, if the underlying idea is the same, suggesting something you don't know it's true, the outcome would be the same. Or did you mean something else? What was your intention with the message?

I meant it as a hint for anyone inclined to dig deeper. It's a possibility rather than something we can confidently dismiss.

"It's probably not X, but we should consider X as we look at this." and "I feel like this might be X but I'm 50:50 on it." are not anywhere near defamation. You have to get a lot closer to certainty before it's an issue.

And listing out "a possibility but you don't want to dig deeper" is often a good contribution to a conversation.

In this case they worded it badly, but the basic idea of the comment isn't awful.

That someone in the team might not have done it on purpose, but left it for convenience? How does that benefit the debate? I really fail to see any silver lining in doing such speculative comments without any substance whatsoever to back it up.

It's fine, this is an american site so JAQing is in fact safe under free speech.

You're welcome to ask b "would none rid me of this meddlesome priest" with no fear

And I'm protected under free speech to try to educate people about good manners, so it's fine too.

never attribute something to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Basically, this has been utilized plenty of times by some really smart folk to get what they want.

We absolutely did not.

Of course that's what a team that did it on purpose would also say :)