(04-12-2023 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-12-2023 01:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-12-2023 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-12-2023 01:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-12-2023 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So does this argument boil down to one side arguing you can't criticize someone for a potential or real conflict of interest, unless there is a clear law/rule/regulation being broken?

You can criticize people for anything you like.

Oh christ... *one shouldn't criticize

From what I see, a lot of the conversation as to whether there is a potential conflict of interest issue hinges on what Thomas was required to disclose at the time of his actions.

That isn't what I meant. I knew I should have elaborated as soon as I posted it. Sorry.

What I mean is, if you make a criticism, you can expect an argument. No reason you can't criticize, but this isn't the kind of forum where everyone will just nod and agree.

Appreciate the clarification.

I agree that we all should often expect pushback on perspectives - but to my point, there has been a lot of talk focusing on what was/wasn't required at the time that Thomas took flights, stayed at lodges owned by a company, etc.

Is a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest absolved by regulations? As in, if a regulation does not specifically forbid it or require its disclosure, is that all one needs to be absolved of conflicts of interest?

There's a world of difference between actual and perceived conflicts of interest. One relies on facts, the other relies on perceptions. Some people have their reasons to assume the worst about a figure like Thomas and they will perceive things. Perceived conflicts of interest will be the most controversial, of course.

I'd also add that some people seem to be operating under the assumption that the code of ethics is relatively stern and covers details of conduct on and off job. It really isn't.