original: Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.
simplifications: If good faith allows discussion and criticism, than editors should not assign the criticized actions to evil intentions unless there is specific proof of that. Good faith does not stop discussion and criticism. Editors should not attribute the actions to malice without specific evidence. This assumes good faith does not mean discussion and criticism cannot happen. Instead, editors should not attribute the criticized actions to spite unless there is evidence of spite. Assuming good faith does not stop discussion and criticism. Instead editors should not say the actions being criticized are malice unless there is proof. Assuming good faith means editors should not attribute criticism to bad intentions unless there is specific evidence of bad intentions. Assuming good faith does not stop discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not think of the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. If we believe good faith won't stop discussion and criticism, then editors should not say the actions are out of malice without evidence of malice. Thought that good faith does not stop discussion and judgement, editors should not feel that being criticized is negative unless there is specific proof of bad intent. Good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Editors should not say that certain actions have bad intentions unless there is proof of the bad intentions. Assuming good faith does not ban discussion and criticism but instead editors should not attribute to malice the actions being criticized unless there is specific evidence of malice.