If they're gonna publicly discredit monica like that I expect some hard evidence to be published at some point. Casting aspersions without proof is a big no no for mods, so it should be for staff too
@410 I read it during the brief time it was up and doesn't offer a ton of clarity. Monica's positions aren't exactly as she stated and there wasn't as much drama in the channel as advertised. Given the high passion about this, I'm not sure it resolved a lot
What's disappointing is that there's still a CoC change that is apparently still coming that SE refuses to discuss in any fashion, but they have at least reaffirmed they feel strongly enough about the pending change to have fired a moderator over it
@KevinB Er, no. That's the one thing the leaked transcript made clear. There was a "clarification" that touched this all off. So either the CoC is going to change or SO/SE is changing how they interpret the existing CoC. Either way, something changed
I've known monica for so long, and I've never seen her as anything but scrupulously professional and kind, and she's directly contradicting their version of events. I won't take that on faith alone.
@Bart No, I would have upvoted an honest reply. Something that said "We won't discuss specifics, but here is what we are trying to do and we felt Monica was not on board with it"
@Snow iirc, they said the current coc already prohibits that behavior, but that facet of it hasn't been clear or enforced, but will be harsher going forward
@Bart There would be less -1 votes I suspect. Either way, the current post is only worthy of downvotes at present. Community is important to SO, just not that important
Don't use pitchforks. Don't be sad. Take a step back, figure out if there are any positives left, or new positives to be had. And if not, find something else in life to put energy and time in, which is rewarding.
If SE has proof of a CoC violation, I don't think sharing it would solve anything. It would only break any remaining moderator trust of communicating with SE.
It'd be a big corporation with all the cards punching down on a user.
forget the pitchforks, use this situation as a learning opportunity, for example George posted this example of what the official response could have been instead of what it actually was: meta.stackexchange.com/a/334263/183800
the whole thing can be studied extensively and used as a guide to how to first of all not create such situations, and second, if it's created, how to fix it
You don't convince them through direct speech anyway. @OptimusPrime "We're good now, right? Please come back. <kissy-emoji>" ... The best you can do is present how you're moving forward and hope that convinces some of them to rejoin. It's probably the most honest approach.
For example, Sara left an answer on Robert's meta post saying we're sorry to see you go. Instead she can say, It's a hard time for all of us. We agree we made some mistakes but we assure you that we'll work hard to resolve it. We're temporarily not accepting your resignation... blah blah blah
@Magisch Honestly IMHO the only reasonable reason they should have done what they did is if there was a direct threat of violence or direct harassment. Basically something involving serious legal consequences for taking longer to act. To me the decision seems knee jerk and reactionary.
When standing between a mob with pitchforks and a mob with torches, telling both mobs to chill and calm down does not seem like a choice that has a long life expectancy
More than "Friends" at the beginning, the "never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday" is tone-deaf to the extreme. Comparing this to some incorrect 0s and 1s being released.
I'm sure there have to be companies specializing on PR disasters that can be hired, and there's gotta be a plan which SE's budget can afford instead of doing this in-house like it's just any other site out there, unless they've calculated and decided it is not worth it.
@TylerH Either way, it's just a technicality. The end result would've been the same anyway. Just was wondering if he was removed for one reason before the other became known.
@Mysticial Yeah. My perspective is: moderators have gone on leave for many months at a time; I imagine if the absence had been benign (e.g. illness or something), SO wouldn't have acted. But in this case, I think (personally) they obviously acted based on the reason for the absence, not the absence itself
@Randal'Thor let's start with them telling us exactly what part of the current CoC they think I "repeated violated". There's a lot of discussion in that email including of deeply personal identity-background stuff, so I want to know what the charge is before I decide if that response would help. They didn't even tell me what they think I did. — Monica Cellio1 hour ago
@Machavity They were removed from imgur, with who SE have a fairly good relationship I guess based on the whole stack.imgur thing, so would be fairly easy to get deleted
I don't know why this needs to be said again but this is still policy in the tavern: Absolutely no personal attacks on staff members. None. Zero. Criticise staff as a unit all you want but nothing personal. We will kick enforce this here without exception.
Also, the title is wrong. There is no apology at all in this "reply". I searched. There's not even a hint of apology. Huge thumbs down. — Shadow20 secs ago
I'd edit it out of the title, but might get suspended for this. Not worth it.
@AndrasDeak This is what I'd call a non-apology. I've always been taught and found it is best to refrain from posting those. It makes others assume bad faith of you, for one. And it does nothing to mend the harm that is intended to be mended by a real apology
An apology has three elements: 1. Admission of responsibility 2. Understanding of the wrong that has been done, and why it is wrong 3. Acknowledgement to avoid repeating the wrong
@AndrasDeak What he's describing is blame shifting. "I'm sorry you were offended" can be taken as "I'm saying this only because I have to". I'm not saying that's what she did here, but that's when "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology
The post we got is only an apology with respect to the tone deafness and timing, not to the substantive matter at hand, so #2 has not been satisfied in my opinion
@Magisch and this is why I'm in shock. I expected either a "It was our decision live with it" or a "we made a mistake and will be fixing it shortly" I got basically the former trying to pretend its the latter.
Okay, y'all. I'm not saying it's even the start of a proper apology, or that we should feel better about it. I'm only saying that it's not fair to remove "apology" from the title if you want to take the high road. Which we should because if both sides are petty then there's especially no way to get out of this.
@Mgetz Rock and a hard place. Lets make a thought experiment. Pretend you're SE's PR person and tasked with communicating that you're sticking to your guns 100% and have done nothing wrong but somehow do that in a way that avoids more fallout
@Magisch I'm too blunt to be in PR hence not even replying to any of the posts. I can't honestly find the words that don't sound accusatory or non-constructive at the moment. I'm simply too hurt.
Come on, it wouldn't have been hard to improve. They could at least have been so honest to actually thank and honour the "moderator's" long and hard work for the network, even though they won'r re-mod her.
there are people within this community who could advise on what to do and say and how to fix this, but only with the best interests of this community, which I don't know if they align with the company's since they're not talking yet
There was a moderator once removed for being a criminal? I never heard about that before, but now it was mentioned two times. I only know of the Silkroad guy, but he wasn't a mod, was he?
Responding here as it is the top post. We aren't going to re-litigate the past. We can't share more details as they involve real people, both moderators and people that work here. What we can say now is that we will do better in the future. We'll be clarifying the CoC and putting out processes for how to remove moderators as well as one to appeal a removal ASAP. — Sara Chipps ♦3 mins ago
