I don't really understand why the set of people that hold this position make this out to be so difficult. "We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write." It's not difficult. "how far do I have to participate in order to engage a user on a question?" "We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write." If you truly "have so much respect", why do you pretend that this is harder than it is? Treating one group of people differently based on their gender is mean. Don't be mean.

@AlexM So far we have exactly one example of someone who has been punished for "repeatedly" violating the CoC, and the only concrete accounts of what transpired (her own, and a leaked transcript) make clear that, at a minimum, she was and still is unaware of exactly which comments of hers were considered problematic, or why. In that light, yes, it's easy to see how the specific wording in the CoC changes could be interpreted in such a way as to continue punishing people for vague or difficult-to-avoid transgressions.

@GrumpyCrouton This FAQ goes a pretty long way to try to make clear that that's not an issue. "We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write." is repeated more than once. Again, this really doesn't strike me as hard.

@KyleStrand Anyone who's been following this closely knows that there's more to it than that. Here's my take: Monica said she would prefer not to use third person singular even when asked directly, and asked for guidance in exploring alternatives. SE said "use them". She asked for alternatives. SE said "use them". She asked for alternatives. SE said "use them". She asked for alternatives. SE flew off the handle and said "go fuck yourself" (not a good move by SE). But her claim that she just simply has no idea what got her in trouble is pretty thin.

@GrumpyCrouton corrective action - oh noes "Q5: How will this be moderated? Will we ban people based on one mistake? We understand that miscommunication or mistakes may happen, so most situations will just result in a gentle correction or warning. As with any violation of the Code of Conduct, in cases of willful, repeated, or abusive behavior, warnings may escalate to account suspensions and/or expulsion."

@GrumpyCrouton good job using 'inclusive' as a bugbear. Yikes!! Listen - if you read this FAQ and come away with the impression that they're on a witch hunt to string up otherwise innocent and respectful posters for inadvertent pronoun offense, I just can't help you. I'm not gonna spend my time trying to closeread it for you to try to twitch out what has you so concerned. The new CoC and this FAQ are so clearly intended to give them standing to take action against obvious bigots, it just makes me wonder what all you tugboats are really worried about.

@AlexM Do you actually think Monica is an "obvious bigot", or are you simply assuming that hers will be the last instance in which the CoC is enforced in that way?

As for her repeatedly asking whether it's okay to avoid pronouns entirely: doesn't the FAQ Q12 mean that this is okay?

@KyleStrand I choose to take SE at their word when they say that the manner in which Monica's case was handled is not in keeping with their policy or the CoC going forward. I don't understand your question about Q12. "We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write" with the consequence of corrective action for repeated/wilful/abusive users continues to strike me as abundantly clear and reasonable.

@AlexM I haven't seen an admission that Monica's firing in itself was against their policy, or that Monica had not violated the CoC; in fact, SE continues to say that she did violate the CoC. Monica has consistently made an effort not to use pronouns in general when writing here, and from her account, that's what she was asking to be permitted to continue doing. Q12 says "as you would naturally write" - and that is how Monica naturally wrote. So, according to Q12, how could she have been in violation of the CoC?

@KyleStrand meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334551/… "She deserved the benefit of a private, comprehensive process. In the absence of a clear process for handling this kind of situation, we should have taken inspiration from our existing Moderator Action Review Process."... "We’ll be sharing with our moderators this week our proposed processes for handling situations like this in the future. This includes a process for handling moderator removals, and a process for reinstating moderators who wish to be reinstated."

@KyleStrand in other words, they'll have a different process moving forward. You asked 'Do you ...think [Monica's] will be the last instance in which the CoC is enforced in that way?' They said it will. I believe them.

@KyleStrand the commentversation under this Q meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334750/… is well worth reading if you haven't seen that one yet, in terms of what she believed she was requesting permission to do, and how that might have been perceived from the people she was talking to and about.

@SterlingArcher 'tugboat' is an expression for a person who pushes the envelope too far.

@AlexM Okay, yes, I was vague about what I meant by "this way." Obviously some of the specifics in Monica's scenario (not answering emails, taking action during her holy days, etc) were bad in ways not directly tied to the CoC itself. But what I'm trying to say is, it is not clear to the community, nor to Monica herself, how she violated the CoC. And that is why people are assuming the worst about how the CoC will be used in the future, regardless of whether the process itself is "nicer" in the future.

@KyleStrand re assuming the worst: I get that. That's a totally reasonable position for experienced users here to take. TPTB at SE will undoubtedly find more ways to fuck this up in the future. That being said, I just don't have a lot of patience or sympathy for the seemingly endless hysterical "OMG how am I ever going to be able to comply with these wacky rules, it's just SO CONFUSING" type posts like this one. It's not confusing. For the record I don't think 'the CoC isn't that hard to understand' and 'SE isn't going to do a good job with this going forward' are incompatible positions.

@KyleStrand re 'not clear how she violated the CoC' I just don't believe that any more at this point. Again, for anybody who's been following this, I think my take on it that I elucidated above (in this comment thread) is pretty compelling.

@AlexM Fair enough. I suspect that there would be far fewer of these posts if it weren't for Monica's firing and the surrounding circumstances, though obviously that's not really a testable hypothesis.

@AlexM ...but Aza seems to have come away from that discussion generally in agreement with her that she hadn't violated it, except possibly in her older posts in the private mod-only forum?

@KyleStrand 1) Oh yeah, there can be no doubt of that. If they hadn't kicked off the festivities by flying off the handle and firing Monica before any actual changes had been announced, the new CoC would almost have gone under the radar - and more importantly, it'd be far easier to tell who was in the wrong in the ensuing discussion. 2) I don't think Monica did violate the CoC. But! I don't think it's reasonable to claim to be confused about SE's position on how she did. Does that distinction make sense?

@AlexM I suppose the distinction makes sense, but I do claim to be confused about SE's position. Are you saying that SE believes her private posts about they/them violated the CoC? The other option, more in line with what SE told The Register, is that they interpreted her "questions" as "challenges", which...doesn't actually seem like a valid CoC violation in a discussion about CoC changes.

I liked what Monica wrote in the chat thread with Aza about that point. Monica didn't communicate, or Sara didn't understand, that Monica felt she was participating in 'debugging' a beta script, basically. Or Sara didn't see it that way. Or whoever pulled the trigger at SE didn't. The usage early on of the term 'sealioning' becomes crucial here.

I'm saying I think SE believed that Monica was not engaging in good faith. On top of what had clearly been discriminatory/inflammatory/hurtful comments she had made in the past, I think she made them angry/frustrated and they fired her on the spot.

@AlexM Do you mean sealioning was actually used in that chat (I haven't read the leaked transcript), or that sealioning is an appropriate term for what Monica was doing?

I don't remember any more, but the term was used (BY SE iirc) early on to describe the behavior that prompted the termination.

you could probably find the references fairly easily

That's....kind of a crumby accusation to throw at a mod, honestly.

no disagreement here