4:05 AM
"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.
2
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.
8
1 hour later…
5:21 AM
@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).
@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.
5:51 AM
@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.
6 hours later…
12:20 PM
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).
1:10 PM
@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.
2 hours later…
user316129
2:55 PM
user316129
user316129
user316129
user316129
user316129
user316129
3:16 PM
8 hours later…
10:55 PM
@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.
5
@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.
@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.
11:16 PM
@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.
« first day (3 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (5 days later) »
Transcript for
Jan4
Jan '205
Jan6
Discussion on question by Sara Chipps…
Imported from a comment discussion on meta.stackexchange.com/q...