Luzion 
"[@I am Unknown":](/images/2826245#comment_31659
)
The decision to omit them from the list is because there is zero expectation of them to perform moderation. This prevents users from contacting inactive staff for support as that is against our moderation policy. The alternative is they use a personal account. The end result is the same. But then juggling two accounts. A police officer doesnt wear their uniform/badge to bed or to the grocery store (typically) unless they are expected to act in that capacity. And again, unless its to stopcrimllegal content, theyre not permitted to act in ANY capacity. We can look at reviewing the transparency of the staff list, but again this isnt that place for this conversation. I get the frustration of the situation, but with the audit log and the power to call us out for failure to audit something with zero reciprocation, the end result is effectively the same. We'll review and discuss further about the staff page transparency internally.
No list of rules is perfect, and we have to operate on a certain level of trust. If we violate said trust, we full expect users to leave. That is our incentive to not be deceitful.
Senior Moderator
pingus
The decision to omit them from the list is because there is zero expectation of them to perform moderation. This prevents users from contacting inactive staff for support as that is against our moderation policy. The alternative is they use a personal account. The end result is the same. But then juggling two accounts. A police officer doesnt wear their uniform/badge to bed or to the grocery store (typically) unless they are expected to act in that capacity. And again, unless its to stop
No list of rules is perfect, and we have to operate on a certain level of trust. If we violate said trust, we full expect users to leave. That is our incentive to not be deceitful.