Safe Speed Forums

I'd prefer, if I may, to ask your opinion on a related but delicate matter concerning the limits of demonstrable honesty and accuracy that can be achieved under SafeSpeed's existing governance structure. This will appear at first glance to be an ad hominem attack. It therefore serves, efficiently, as both a question and as an example of the problem the question is intended to address.

In his appeal for funds, Paul has been perfectly honest in declaring that his livelihood is inextricably intertwined with the successful prosecution of his case. He has, you'll recall, given up his paying job, he has "never earned so little in his life", his site and source of income is under semi-permanent threat of closure due to lack of funds, etc.

At the same time, he enjoys a disproportionately influential role over both the manufacture and verification of its theories. On the one hand he posits the effectiveness of a policy called "open review" as the principle means by which the veracity of his case should be tested. On the other he establishes himself simultaneously as judge, executioner and opinionated juryman in all debates between a highly unrepresentative jury testing that veracity, by virtue of his executive power as moderator of the discussion forum devoted to that task.

The challenge to SafeSpeed to provide independent verification of the honesty and accuracy of its arguments marks a transition point. While the goal until now has been to mobilise a group of believers, its goal now must be to persuade a group of unbelievers. Certain issues that may previously have been taken for granted or politely overlooked will now assume greater prominence. One of those issues will be that of motivation, an essential aspect to any evaluation of the merits of an argument.

Question: to what extent is Paul compromised in his role as advocate and champion of a contentious social issue, both by his unusually high personal exposure to the consequence of a failure, and by the appearance (manifested or not) of the potential for distortion arising from severe conflict of interest?

Note: This is emphatically not an attack on Paul's character, which I have no reason to question. It is concerned with the principle of the Separation of Powers, which recognises that processes that fail to separate certain functions adequately can lack integrity even when carried out by people of unimpeachable integrity.

[edited: because it is a bugger of a post to write while minimising offence.

This will appear at first glance to be an ad hominem attack.