"Monica was accused of violating the current CoC at the time." They say that, but it will never sit well. A code is either written or unwritten. If was written there would be no dispute. It wasn't written. You can say, "Our unwritten code changed, sorry you didn't know, and by the way, we're enforcing it as if it was written," and they did. But that's just making up the rules as you go along, whenever you feel like it.

If you're going to do that, fine. But it's duplicitous to pretend that what they said later was actually something they said before. Funny that this was their code of conduct all along except for the detail of it being written and people knowing what it says. And then, what was supposedly in the code all along actually gets added, making it even more obvious that wasn't already there.

That smells. That nonsense about it being a clarification isn't just wrong. It's insulting to our intelligence. It wasn't in the code of conduct. They fired someone, added new rules in writing, and then said that what was just added was always there. I know some folks hate the word Orwellian, but that's what it is. it's telling a lie with a straight face. It's excusing themselves by trying to edit reality and hoping we're really that stupid.

@Rubiksmoose The change was advertised as a clarification, not an actual change. But that's actually irrelevant because the FAQ explicitly allows what she was asking about in the moderator room: she asked about consistently using pronoun free language (see the footnote).

So even according to the updated CoC and its clarifications, there was no CoC violation.

@ScottHannen See my reply to Rubikmoose above. It doesn't just smell. The entire removal is just logically inconsistent.

That's why I'm convinced it was done as a result of ideological extremism. After it was done, though, Sara decided to double down on it publicly, and once she had done so, SO decided they couldn't risk exposing themselves to actual financial liability by backtracking or admitting to any wrongdoing.

What should have happened was, 1. Sara should have followed the existing process for moderator removal. (There actually was one.) Upon further examination, it should have been determined that Monica never violated the CoC. 2. Failing that, SO should have forced Sara to backtrack and follow the process, which would have resulted in reinstatement. (I'm okay with not restoring her mod powers until that process was over, but the process should have proceeded otherwise as normal.)

The bottom line is that Sara bypassed all of SO's safeguards that existed to prevent these kinds of injustices, and she has never once shown an ounce of humility over doing so or respect for the community with which she works. Why SO is standing behind her is enormously confusing, unless you assume that the community is actually no longer a priority.

I should say, "why they stood by her initially," because it's clear the reason why they continue to is that they don't want to give Monica a path to victory in a court case (which she probably wouldn't even pursue if they just did the right thing).

@jpmc26 Also, on this note, Monica didn't even actually do anything to another person. She just posed some difficulties and alternative solutions to what the CoC proposal was demanding of users.

@jpmc26 I don't think what happened was right or done in the right way, but what Monica said in the chat room was not, as far as we can tell, the full reason for her firing. Moderators had several other points of reference that were not leaked and should remain confidential.

@jpmc26 again, you don't have the full story and it's faulty to assume you do based on an incomplete leak of a few hours of the room. Actually the problems started months before.

But yeah the whole firing thing was beyond wrong and completely mishandled.

@Vipertecpro there's a big difference between someone not doing anything wrong and the punishment being correct. The way the whole thing was handled is pretty unanimously agreed to have been repugnant and wrong. That doesn't mean Monica didn't do things wrong as well though.

An out-of-touch attitude from the authorities, refusal to acknowledge anything more than the bare minimum, disposable actions that do not attempt to gain back significant trust hmm, a culture of fear and censorship, hmm... cough cough, sounds awfully like Hong Kong (as well as Chile, France, and many other places around the world right now).

@Rubiksmoose I'm sorry, but no. All the information I have points toward Monica just trying to be somewhat considerate toward people who disagree with trans-advocacy (not even agreeing with them, just trying to be respectful of their rights and opinions), and if that's the cause of a conflict, that's not Monica's fault. As someone who falls into that category, I have personally experienced insults and mistreatment because of it from staff members.

So without more specific information, you just have no credibility to convince anyone otherwise.

Maybe I could buy that discussions got kind of heated at times, but frankly, it's not Monica's fault for trying to actually moderate according to the text of the CoC: be welcoming to everyone, not just people with whom you happen to agree o political and social issues.

@jpmc26 shrug it's not my job to convince you of anything. The only parties to whom the information should matter is Monica and SE regardless. So releasing that information is both wrong and useless.

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica I was referring to the TL leak not the news article

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica the TL serves a necessary purpose; we just don't have a better way to do some moderation tasks.

And it's highly debatable who would be most harmed by more leaks, but hopefully we won't have to find out. It wouldn't serve any purpose at this point anyways.

A useful purpose.

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica errr "not nice things being said about them" in the TL was not the issue here. Or at least not a major one in the grand scheme of things.

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica and nobody thinks that it's the only stuff to get out of course.

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica yup, and a lot of the misinformation coming from some of the mods made this whole thing way worse.

@RichardsaysReinstateMonica One of SE's biggest mistakes, although there are so many to choose from.

We can pretty much agree that this was severely mishandled from beginning to end. The only positive result for me being the new CoC itself.

@Rubiksmoose "The only parties to whom the information should matter is Monica and SE regardless." That's a load of bull, and you know it. The character of the people with authority is of interest to everyone subject to that authority. I'm not insisting or even really asking for you to provide any information, but the idea that no one but these two parties has any legitimate interest in it is just intellectually dishonest.

Either way, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Monica has not been proven guilty of anything. SO has, even by your own admission. If you expect me to believe Monica was in the wrong, then simply, "I have secret information," is not enough.

At least not when you haven't established trustworthiness.

@jpmc26 Well at this point you could make an argument for the community to have access to that information, but also at this point dragging more information out now (since an agreement has been made and no further progress will happen) it does almost nothing except create further harm for the person who shouldn't be harmed more (Monica). If SE had handled this correctly, the only people that need have been involved (or should have been involved) would have been SE and Monica.

@jpmc26 Even if facts were made public, I expect nobody to be convinced about much at this point regardless honestly. It doesn't matter much to me what you believe or if you trust me. Though I'm not sure what I'd have to gain by lying.

@Rubiksmoose I'm not suggesting you're lying, but I am very concerned about biases created by your opinion on the social issue. What's particularly difficult about this issue is that trans-advocates frequently insist that it's inherently harmful to say anything even remotely approaching disagreement with their position, and that is from what I can tell now the official position of SO.

If you agree with that position, of course you're going to believe Monica is guilty of harming people who identify as transgender by trying to show some consideration for people who disagree on the issue.

Since I can explicitly see the force of conflicting value systems at play anyway, it seems far more likely that you just happen to hold a value system more similar to the dominant one at SO, while Monica and those who publicly resigned have a value system that is more inclusive of and considerate towards people with different opinions on this issue.

@jpmc26 Sure, it certainly is useful to know what a person thinks ethically about certain issues and yeah you don't know me from anybody else. I'm not insulted by your lack of trust in me. I get it.

@Rubiksmoose It's not even that I don't trust you. It's that I form opinions based on the evidence I have available, and the evidence I have makes what I've said the most likely and reasonable explanation.

It explains SO's behavior. It explains Monica's behavior. It explains Sara's response. It explains the behavior of mods who resigned. It explains the behavior of mods who didn't resign.

@jpmc26 I'd be very careful with that last one. There are plenty of active mods that are completely fed up with SE and just as ticked off (or more) than some that resigned.

@Rubiksmoose I didn't say they weren't, but you yourself admitted you consider the new CoC encoding SO's position on trans issues to be a positive. You can be "completely fed up" with their general poor handling of virtually everything lately but find enough of a reason to stay since other parts of your value system are reaffirmed and you don't fear removal over your position on this issue.

@jpmc26 My only point was that reading too much into whether a mod stays or leaves, will lead you to incorrect conclusions at times. There are mods still on the roll who actively disagree with the CoC changes utterly.

Of course, the people who stayed obviously have some reason. Many of us, the primary reason was because we cared about our communities too much to abandon them. But likely no two motivations are the same.

@jpmc26 The idea of the CoC change was a good one in my mind, it's implementation is still up in the air. Only time will tell if it achieves the goal or not.