You have not addressed the part of the question referencing the violation of CoC.

Yes, I did, @Srid. Also, I am sick to death of everyone, on every possible side of this debate throwing lit matches and then walking away, returning only to complain that the fire wasn't extinguished to their satisfaction.

The problem isn't personal statements, it's violations of "be nice" policy or CoC or whatever else you want to call it. Except apparently some animals on an Orwellian farm are more equal than others and can violate it all they want. Repeatedly.

Yeah, point out to me where in the CoC it says "thou must not post observations directly pertaining to the thing being asked about, if someone might not like those observations". It doesn't. You don't want folks here commenting on a topic? Don't ask about it. My team has had to learn that lesson, maybe what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

@Shog9 "Focus on the content, not the person." - the phrase in the post "I ask you and your supporters to stop hijacking Meta, and making many of the posts about you. Other people are being hurt and apparently no one seems to care about that. I, personally have received more abuse over this than you have." violates it in my interpretation of CoC. I might be mistaken. But I am certainly not the only one who sees a personal attack there.

You are once again evading the fact that it was flagged for being "rude or offensive". This is not merely about an answer being offtopic. Please try to understand this simple point.

I have elaborated my question a bit. In particular, I wonder where the line is. When is personal statement a personal attack? It is public, so is the answer in question. By putting it out there it is open to the whole world to scrutinize. That's why I think it is important to try to be nice as this infighting reflects extremely badly on the way community members interact.

Rude and offensive is a high bar, @srid - particularly when it's obvious that flags are being coordinated in chat to force deletion. That's been happening a lot lately, and it's gotta stop: there's gotta be more wrong with the post than an unpopular opinion or observation.

Hold on. How is the process you're pointing to relevant to the fact that you (inc.) besmirched one of your most valuable volunteers to the press and have refused, since then, to discuss doing anything to fix that? That's why this is happening on Meta.

Nope, @houseMan

The CoC is fundamentally broken. "Point out to me where…"? Here you go: "Monica, you…" "Focus on the content, not the person. This includes terms that feel personal even when…", "We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people" (Yo, 90% hit rate on answer complained about here, Bueller, anyone?) Etc. not* reinstating Monica unconditionally, immediately,* no Qs asked,is *bigotry: "obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a creed or opinion and intolerance of others Maybe what's good for the community *is good for the CM and esp for the staff?

And WHO is the content of the question, @lang?

I don't have time to explain how flags work, @house. Search meta. When 5 offensive flags show up in a few seconds, I have a choice: act or let automated action.

"validating" - I've been here watching and intervening, @agirl; that's what this is all about.

@Shog9 doesn't action include going through a post, reading it, seeing if there is offensiveness, CoC violations, and then trying to fix them? If there are so many flags at once, perhaps delete first, help the author to fix if there are violations and then undelete it? After all, now people are down voting the answer en masse and that's only deepening divisions. Nobody here wants that, but that doesn't mean we should settle for CoC violations.

How do you think I saw the flags come in, @jjj? There was an 'other' flag, and while I'm reading the post suddenly 5 abuse flags.

@Shog9 maybe you should take a breather. It's understandable that you're getting frustrated, but your comments don't read as kind or professional right now.

I'm trying to eat supper, @denovo. Typing one handed on a tiny screen encouraging brevity. Take it or leave it.

@Mari-LouA well there's no coordination going on on my part. (at)Shog9 I have no idea how your flag system works on the moderator's end. I am not a mod, but I sympathize with your being under intense pressure. I don't blame you for how you and others handle moderation, I don't blame Yvette for getting emotional under a lot of harassment she too receives. Everyone is a bit tense but I think the best way is to talk about it and to raise issues when we think they aren't handled the way they should.

You're not the only one, @194636.

I completely agree with Shog here (big shocker). That flag decline message looks like something I'd write. The answer in question looks like something I'd downvote, but not something that I'd delete as a moderator of a Meta site, especially on a question where it was relevant. I'd downvote it because I disagree with it, but folks are allowed to be wrong on Meta. Throwing around the CoC like it's a weapon is becoming not only tiring, but downright problematic. The CoC isn't a tool for you to get content removed that you dislike or disagree with.

"particularly when it's obvious that flags are being coordinated" - Certainly wasn't in my case, I am staying away from the cease pool that is the chat room, but was still offended by the answer in question.

Your flag was something like an hour after the first batch, @ramhound

Also...it seems to me that there is much overlap in membership between the group upset that this answer wasn't deleted by a moderator because they find it shockingly disagreeable, and the group that is upset that moderators are deleting too many answers because they find them shockingly disagreeable. You can't have it both ways. I'm firmly on the side of letting people express themselves on Meta, even if you utterly disagree with everything they say and everything they stand for. Please take a moment to reflect on the ideological consistency of your complaints, and what you really want.

@CodyGray - I agree but we have to be civil about it, and there was nothing civil, about that particular answer.

@CodyGray we need some standardization of the bar for RA, then. If "Well c'mon. How clueless do you have to be?" meets it, this flag certainly does. I would really like to see the CoC work and civility to return, but enforcement HAS to be more consistent or it will just lead to continued bitterness.

@CodyGray Quoting this: "Why is Monica being singled out? Monica actively fought against addressing people using the singular they - despite being asked to many times over the course of a year. Part of the reason the Code of Conduct has needed to become so formalised, is due to this stubborn refusal to respect other people."" - This part was very aggressive and rude, and was not the sole thing that was that way there.

@DeNovo Rude/abusive (nowadays harassment bigotry or abuse) for comments is a completely different beast from rude/abusive for posts. The bar for the latter is a lot higher since that affects an account.

@DanielFischer the comment in question certainly affected an account. Robert was suspended. I don't see anything in the CoC that says you get to be a little ruder in posts than comments...

@DeNovo One doesn't get to be ruder in posts than in comments. I haven't communicated clearly, what I was trying to say is that the bar for validating a rude/abusive flag on a post is higher than for validating a comment flag, because the post flag comes with direct penalties, while the comment flag doesn't. If a post is rude, but not red-flag-rude, an "other" flag is the way to go. Whether the post in question was red-flag-rude or "other"-rude is of course debatable.

@DanielFischer I see. Thank you.

just a notice. I didn't downvote this post because I disagree on the part where you say that "I don't see any purpose to holding this discussion on meta". What I do disagree on is that if I understand correctly you also claim that the flagged post isn't rude.

"I can't rightly argue that personal statements are inappropriate in a thread about a person, posted by that person." This and the decline reason fail to acknowledge that it was not Monica who made this about her, it was SE staff dragging her name through the mud in public. Now, Monica is caught in it like in a spider's web.

I don't use chat: if I flag, it's because I independently notice something is harsh. Nothing coordinated about my actions, and I don't flag HALF as much as I feel I should. I assume that's why there are many flags -- many people independently reacting.

@CodyGray "... there is much overlap in membership ..." Are you surprised people who have had their answers deleted for being "shockingly disagreeable" are upset when others are seemingly not being held to the same standard? (I recognize they are being held to the same standard, as the answer in question was deleted, but having multiple flags declined makes it seem like it wasn't going to be)

@shog I guess this is how CoC affects you as well. Also, if Monica case was solved, there would be no reason for ongoing war. Expressing personal opinion, unpopular one, in this setting is going to backfire with no doubt. By refusing to accept the reason for reaction on your post, you play the same game SE Inc is playing - ignorance (although you seem quite open overall, almost like the only officer left on the battlefield :) )

@CodyGray "it seems to me that there is much overlap in membership between the group upset that this answer wasn't deleted by a moderator because they find it shockingly disagreeable, and the group that is upset that moderators are deleting too many answers because they find them shockingly disagreeable" The point is that content on one side of that debate has been getting deleted, and the content in question hadn't at the time OP asked their question. I agree that it's only fair to "not have it both ways", in which case, the flag shouldn't have been declined,as the precedent is to delete.