Sorry, I know this is your piecing thread Denver, so don't want to hijack it further with this trust, transparency issue. Yet... here I go...
Just an open question. Does trust not really still come down to give trust or don't give trust? We have to assume that there needs to be trust that even a request and stated commitment to transparency is going to "stick". That the AP will remain transparent.
Again, expressed many times there's many ways to hide if the AP "relapses". So intuition truly has to play a huge factor in trusting or not trusting. How does one write a transparency clause that is truly open ended and enforces it?
And I still get caught questioning what appears to be stressing issues of the AP's intent to harm the BP.
It's easy enough to prove or show fact. It's quite another challenge to prove intent. No one but the AP knows that they intended to harm the BP. And striking out in a moment of intention may not prove habitual or chronic intention to harm.
It looks different from an abuse perspective, especially if one takes a zero tolerance position, which I do. I think we're quick to label something as abuse, before we examine whether there was intent.
