Justice requires due process. This announcement was made two hours ago. Everyone just wants to instant gratification and to know which party is right or wrong so they can feel good about their minds being made up. We are not the jury here, we're just a tool in their power struggle. They're explicitly not asking us to pass judgement, they're just asking for a new jury.

You're neither the judge not the jury. They aren't trying to make the case to you. The case has (it seems) been made and resolved elsewhere. This is just a public statement saying they do not accept the resolution and therefore resign.

Protecting people's privacy is a fundamental principle of justice, too. It's extremely common for court records in cases regarding people's conduct to be sealed.

Forcing people to air all their dirty laundry in public, as the Puritans did, is not just, and tends to severely limit already-marginalized people's access to justice.

Your argument is flawed since some amount of secrecy/discretion in judicial proceedings is allowed and necessary. For examples look to investigators and DAs who refuse to provide details for ongoing investigations, and closed proceedings.

More importantly this is a problem in a private organization and not a public entity or court proceeding.

> An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated.

This is not about whatever the original "accusation" was; it's about process and structure. AIUI, the whole purpose of having a moderation team is so "dirty laundry" of that kind won't have to be aired in public and ruled on by an uninformed lynch mob. They're talking about not being able -- allowed -- to do their job, not the (irrelevant) details of one specific task of the job.

> This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries.

And this is a forum moderation team, not a court of law.