I was also thinking more about accountability, and I realized there are situations where I would approach it differently.
If the person who caused harm is someone I personally know or someone within my own direct group, then I would likely step in and take some level of responsibility, more in a “this is my circle, and I have some responsibility for what happens within it” kind of way. Like, “this is my circus and those are my monkeys,” where there’s an actual relationship or connection there.
For example, when I was in a Maintainer role for the vessel, part of my responsibility was making sure that those using it were behaving appropriately and following certain rules. If someone caused harm during that time, it would have been my responsibility to step in, make sure amends were made, and take accountability for the situation as a whole. That role came with that kind of oversight and responsibility. But not everyone is in that kind of role. Not everyone is a Maintainer, a Party Leader, or even part of the same “group” in that way. And when that connection or responsibility isn’t there, it feels very different.
So for me, the difference really comes down to proximity, role, and responsibility. When there’s a direct connection or a defined role that includes accountability, stepping in makes sense. But when there isn’t, it feels more appropriate, and more aligned with an idea of accountability I believe, for the individual who caused the harm to be the one to address it, rather than placing that responsibility onto someone who wasn’t involved.
