I'll refer to Librarian's answer to you above, but I'd also like to add to his post that there's a reason why NPD members don't have public accounts here on VGC. I believe Aqua also previously said that NPD are more concerned about what shows up on GAF because it has much higher trafic than this site.
And when your reply presented a "possibility" and not a certainty, I have to ask if you understand the concept of mitigation.
Usually it's just that the person in question hasn't thought of enough scenarios, and it doesn't look like you have.
Hiku. Tell me how much mitigation happened on it releasing to NeoGaf in less than a day later. That just shows you what was done wasn't mitigation at all.
Praying for a disaster not to hapening isn't mitigating to the upmost as librarian herself said she was doing. Mitigation should at least bring you to the "unlikely to occur and/or no severe damage if occuring" not bringing it to "catastrophic failure of large probability".
So I ask you, do you really understand the concept of mitigation or just heard the word and it's meaning in a dictionary?
No one said that "what was done" (Librarian posting here) alone was enough to mitigate the risk. It requirred the assistance of the Gaf members who Librarian expected would read it as well.
But one of the Gaf members chose not to comply, and none of the mods decided to remove the numbers. That's why there was no risk mitigation. It was not in Librarian's hands alone, but the community.
As for "Mitigation should at least bring you to the *insert criteria*", the goal is not for you to decide. If Librarian is ok with even just a 1% less chance of getting caught this month, that's up to him.
If I lower the likelihood of the boss' Death spell from 95% to 90%, I'm still extremely likely to die. But I've still mitigated the risk by 5%.
Whatever the actual number would have been, no one can quantify. But it is Librarian's assesment, as well as Aqua's (and she apparently knows NPD people personally) that NPD are much less concerned with VGC than they are with GAF. And the fact that they have no public accounts here is clear indication of that.
As for "praying for distaster not to happen", again, that is not the only goal of lowering the risk. It can also be to delay the inevitable. Getting numbers for 4 months is better than 3 months. Etc.
Your previous response in regards to risk mitigation was that NPD can still find out that the numbers were posted here. That's not a counter argument though, as Librarian and myself already made it clear to you multiple times that we are well aware of that, but that the goal was to just lower the risks of this happening. Not elliminate it.
Librarian/Me: We know that NPD can still find out that numbers are posted here, but we just want to lower the chance of it happening.
You: errrr you know that if Gaf members can find the numbers here, NPD can also find out, right? So your claim is still baseless.
That's not a counter argument. That's just repeating what we said, as if we claimed otherwise.
And because we explained it multiple times to you, it was certainly justified to ask if you understand the concept of mitigation, as it doesn't seem like you did based on your attempt of a retort.
And now you're saying that risk mitigation "should reach a specific criteria", but the one who decides how much they're content with mitigating is the risk taker himself. Don't move the goalpost.