4 ms·

Perhaps the most striking thing here is the surety of all these responses, it’s all nefarious, lies, sleight of hand. I can at least sympathize with not being

Perhaps the most striking thing here is the surety of all these responses, it’s all nefarious, lies, sleight of hand. I can at least sympathize with not being told what you did wrong, but this is still a he-said-she-said case. Until either SE or Monica releases details, the only two people who know are SE and her.

rando444 7y ago
Monica already posted everything from her side here: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... Or is there some specific piece of information you feel she is withholding?
- mieseratte 7y ago
  She posted her side of the story, with no material backing information making, as I’ve said, a he-said-she-said tale. We don’t know anything material of the exchange. Yet everyone feels compelled to assume bad faith on SE’s part.
  - simonh 7y ago
    This is basically guilt determined by a closed court in which the accused has no representation and no reason is given for the judgement, and in fact even the rule they've been found guilty of isn't disclosed, even to them. So what is it exactly that they've done to earn any benefit of the doubt?
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      It’s a private website, not the US Supreme Court. Try applying that same standard on HN! They’ve done nothing to earn my doubt, I don’t start from an assumption of guilt as you do. Y’all are some toxic reactionary shits. Thanks for the reminder of why I quit this site the first time buddy! Stay salty, HN!
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > They’ve done nothing to earn my doubt A few dozen long-time moderators vouching for the one that was fired and stepping down should inspire some doubt. Personally, vague judgements that say "she totally, repeatedly overstepped the lines, and didn't want to change after we confronted her, but we won't comment on issues like these" always sound fishy to me. If they won't comment, they wouldn't have commented. It looks like "we're inventing reasons that make people shut up about it because we don't have an actual case that we could present".
  - benmmurphy 7y ago
    Monica’s defence is proving a negative at this point. She claims she was removed without just cause. She has provided evidence that she was removed. However, it is difficult for her to prove there was no just cause. Maybe she could provide transcripts for her N years at stackoverflow detailing all her interactions with the community then we can be sure she was removed without good reason.
shkkmo 7y ago
It is not just "He said, She said", it is the Stack Exchange staff deciding to unilaterally ditch the establish proceedure for removing a mod: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/handling-calls-to-remove-a-moderator https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/handling-cal...

rando444 7y ago

Monica already posted everything from her side here: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... Or is there some specific piece of information you feel she is withholding?

mieseratte 7y ago
She posted her side of the story, with no material backing information making, as I’ve said, a he-said-she-said tale. We don’t know anything material of the exchange. Yet everyone feels compelled to assume bad faith on SE’s part.
- simonh 7y ago
  This is basically guilt determined by a closed court in which the accused has no representation and no reason is given for the judgement, and in fact even the rule they've been found guilty of isn't disclosed, even to them. So what is it exactly that they've done to earn any benefit of the doubt?
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    It’s a private website, not the US Supreme Court. Try applying that same standard on HN! They’ve done nothing to earn my doubt, I don’t start from an assumption of guilt as you do. Y’all are some toxic reactionary shits. Thanks for the reminder of why I quit this site the first time buddy! Stay salty, HN!
    - luckylion 7y ago
      > They’ve done nothing to earn my doubt A few dozen long-time moderators vouching for the one that was fired and stepping down should inspire some doubt. Personally, vague judgements that say "she totally, repeatedly overstepped the lines, and didn't want to change after we confronted her, but we won't comment on issues like these" always sound fishy to me. If they won't comment, they wouldn't have commented. It looks like "we're inventing reasons that make people shut up about it because we don't have an actual case that we could present".
- benmmurphy 7y ago
  Monica’s defence is proving a negative at this point. She claims she was removed without just cause. She has provided evidence that she was removed. However, it is difficult for her to prove there was no just cause. Maybe she could provide transcripts for her N years at stackoverflow detailing all her interactions with the community then we can be sure she was removed without good reason.

shkkmo 7y ago

It is not just "He said, She said", it is the Stack Exchange staff deciding to unilaterally ditch the establish proceedure for removing a mod: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/handling-calls-to-remove-a-moderator https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/handling-cal...