16 ms·

An apology to our community, and next steps

282 points by SnarkAsh 7y ago

dang 7y ago
I think these are the main previous threads, in reverse order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344
- 609venezia 7y ago
  For other folks who might have made the same misreading I did: This thread is a new post from stack, not another link to 21153224 which has the similar title "update to our community and an apology" The new post is @ 199 upvotes versus -1278, so the reception so far seems to be very different
Lazare 7y ago
A bit late, but a good response, I'd say.
barry-cotter 7y ago
Mostly another non-apology. Not sorry for what they did, but for doing it arbitrarily, without following a procedure, and for not taking account of the Jewish holiday Monica was observing. Instead of just imposing the CoC they’re going to rush it through three days of discussion, then impose it.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  They all acknowledge that they made mistakes, name those mistakes reasonably accurately, take personal responsibility for those mistakes and apologize for the harm those mistakes caused. What else were you looking to see? I would have liked to see more of an explanation of why these mistakes were made, but this is a far better apology than the last one. Of course, an apology is just words and should be taken with a grain of salt until actions are taken to back up those words. It seems to me that they could easily have reached out to Monica BEFORE posting a public apology. We will see how they handle feedback on the new CoC and what other actions they will take to restore trust.
- ahuth 7y ago
  I don't know, seems pretty apology-y. I'm not familiar with what happened, but here he repeatedly stated "I am responsible for that".
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? > We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So unless they agree to it, she can't publish what they talk about in private, no matter the words spoken or the outcome. That's such a weird commitment to privacy in this context, it's not like this has anything to do with private stuff as far as the moderator is concerned, unless I'm completely mistaken. So it's basically offering a conversation with the option on their part to pretend there never was a conversation, should it fail to achieve the goal they no doubt already outlined in meetings.
    - phnofive 7y ago
      Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. She’s been discussing this openly, so it reads like a threat to keep all future grievances private unless SO allows otherwise if there’s any hope of being reinstated.
    - Lazare 7y ago
      > It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? I'm not convinced that removing Monica as a moderator was a mistake. She made it clear in a comment quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. And in the leaked transcripts (if you trust them) it seems she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused. Obviously SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication (which is what they apologised for), but ultimately it seems that she's just not not a good fit for SO. There's no suggestion that SO is not going to enforce a rule requiring moderators to use people's preferred pronouns, when known and when appropriate, and Monica was very clear that in at least some cases she would not do so. So...one way or another, she was clearly going to be removed, right? Arguably she could be re-instated today and then re-removed later in the week when the CoC changes come into force, but to what end? That doesn't help her, SO, or the community. (And that assumes she didn't violate the existing CoC, which is still disputed.)
- mellosouls 7y ago
  Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling, although it's late and a response to the snowballing community reaction rather than because it's the right thing to do. Of course, it's possible that that reaction has prompted genuine reflection and contrition and the apology is sincere as well as a panic measure.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    Groveling isn't an apology. If you ever have to make an apology of this type, always apologize to individuals before groups and before stating your mission. It reads better and gives the impression you care about the person. Also, undo what you did if you can, otherwise it's "sorry, not sorry".
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      A grovelling apology is certainly an apology, even if sometimes unseemly and issued in desperation rather than (or in addition to) regret. But sure, there might be better ways to do it.
      - protomyth 7y ago
        A grovelling apology is certainly an apology Well, yes by definition, but groveling is not, in and of itself, an apology. Generally in an apology you undo what damage you did to the maximum extent allowable or offer some sort of compensation.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        That is not how any apology I've heard of has ever worked. Apologies are an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or of pain caused, usually combined with an attempt to avoid the same wrongdoing in the future. All of that is evident here. Actions to make right a prior wrong (of which there are some here too) are not normally a requirement, although they can apology.
d23 7y ago
Not sure if it's been covered, but I started getting spam emails from them for the first time too.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  This response covers some additional issues people would like to see addressed, but does not mention that complaint. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573
- swasheck 7y ago
  I tried unsubscribing but none of the options actually worked. I stopped participating in the network about two years ago and I can’t say I’m disappointed.
twirlock 7y ago
Terrible apology. Codes of conduct are oppressive, officious trash being pushed by literal communist meddlers. The technorati are becoming insufferable.
blondin 7y ago
i mean... most people are already on the moderator side, but she might need to take it slow too. i might be reading all this wrong but she is coming off as the side that is slightly aggressive to me. she's been going at every single post they make or people on these post. i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything.
- kaishiro 7y ago
  She feels wronged. What’s the issue with her engaging in the ensuing discourse?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything. From what I've gathered, there seems to be additional angle here in which SE talked to the press, apparently using her real name and telling falsehoods about her, and now her name is attached to a slanderous story. This means for her it's no longer about a volunteer position at a tech company, but about her entire life. EDIT: here's the article in question: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_controversy/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont....
miles 7y ago
From a comment by rolfl[0]: > This apology has come not a moment too soon.... for the past days, almost a week, now, moderators from across most sites have collaborated on communicating our concerns to the SE staff. We have been working "in plain sight" of the SE staff (using the TL to collaborate). ... The timing of this apology appears to have been in a race to beat our statements about the issues. The comment was updated to include a link to https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-e... , which in turn links to: https://dearstackexchange.com https://dearstackexchange.com . [0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001
- larkeith 7y ago
  Note that Fullerton's apology lacks any reference to Stack Exchange's turn towards the press during the controversy. As brought up in the Dear Stack Exchange letter (and in numerous Meta posts over the last week), it is concerning that SE would be willing to make a (potentially libelous) statement to the press, while refusing the same to the community. This conspicuous absence makes me question the authenticity of the apology.
  - cmroanirgo 7y ago
    In this post, Mr Fullerton 'takes the brunt' of the blame, clearly defusing any more singular issues with the various individuals involved. This has the unfortunate side effect of highlighting how SE is not a community run system, but is more of an oligarchy. One wonders how it could have been handled better, but still, all decisions went through one person and it wasn't a community that did it.
    - _Understated_ 7y ago
      My take on that decision is it's because SE is a business: They use the community to MAKE money. Now, it's not entirely one-way as they need to be providing value to the community in order for it to continue but business decisions need to be made at some level and the community level isn't the place for it. If SE perceived a loss in profits from community members' actions then they need to take steps to mitigate that loss and I suspect that's what they did(rightly or wrongly). Not trying to defend SE's actions, or those of the community (I have no opinion on the matter and, not to make light of the issue, I don't really care either) but a mistake that I sometimes make is thinking businesses make decisions for reasons other than profit. In saying that, if SE thought that putting it to a community vote (or whatever best decision making tool the community could use) would make them more money then they likely would have... makes good business sense. Just my £0.02
guardiangod 7y ago
My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step. However, the update accumulated to the 'fix' being SO will release an updated CoC on Oct 7/10/11 with inputs from all mods, and an updated mod firing process. These are absolutely essential, no doubt, but incomplete. What is missing, in my opinion, is the update still did not address how the original conflict came to the firing of a respected member. The most sincere way to apologize would be to use this failure of process as an example, to showcase how SO erred and how SO intends to change. Finally, a separate, public apology to the fired mod, with specific example of how SO mishandled each step, is crucial in regaining the trust. EDIT: After giving some thoughts, I realize that SO is apologizing, not for wrongful termination, but for not privately firing the mod with due process. In SO's management eyes, the firing is still justified. Fine. Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions. It's clear they have no desire to explain and would very much prefer nothing further is made public: >We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.
- emmelaich 7y ago
  I can't really understand this sentence of yours > My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step. in particular with the "yet". Would it be a better first step without apologies?
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    It reads like a clinical PR piece. Mostly it reads as they're sorry it blew up in their face, and it doesn't really feel like they're sorry about what they did except harm themselves. Then again, I might just be a bit jaded like GP.
throwawaypolicy 7y ago
> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify. So wait - what are they apologizing for? If I understand this situation correctly there are basically two sides: - The people who put in place the new code of conduct, who think that they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn't participate authentically..." by not putting this code of conduct in place fast enough. - The moderator who fired/the people who resigned who think they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they couldn't participate authentically..." when they put in place the new poorly thought out policy Is this intended to double (triple? quadruple?) down on the original position? Or apologize for it and move to the second?
- Lazare 7y ago
  They are apologising for 1) not implementing the new CoC fast enough and 2) not being clear enough when they did, which led to people arguing about what happened, whether a CoC is even a good idea, whether or not people should be forced to use other people's preferred pronouns, etc. So yes, this is intended to strictly double down on the original position.
- sah2ed 7y ago
  This resignation notice [0] coincided closely with the Judaism moderator's firing by SE. It should provide a bit more context with respect to their apology to the LGBTQ+ community that felt let down by SE: 0: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/resignation-notice https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/res...
ykevinator 7y ago
Oh my god, get over yourself, it's not that important in our lives.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelvin0 7y ago
Not sure I understand what happened and who why people were offended. If there's wrongdoing by SO, what does this have to do with a holiday(jewish or other)? Thanks for clarifications and filling in the gaps for me.
- protomyth 7y ago
  She is Jewish. They canned her at 6pm EST on a Friday then were a bit flippant about it using the no-class phrase We learned (or were painfully reminded, rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday in a previous update. It was also before a Jewish holiday. This is not the way to treat people, but, if you think cynically, is an excellent way to make sure you have time before the person fired can make a proper response depending on how they practice.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    To clarify further, they removed her moderator privileges but didn't actually tell her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
- Lazare 7y ago
  SO removed a Jewish mod during a Jewish holiday, when she would not be using the internet. She complained about it, and they apologised for the timing.
  - kelvin0 7y ago
    Oh, the mod was observing a holiday (during which internet usage is usually not possible) and got 'fired' right beforehand. Ah, kinda like getting a 5PM meeting on a friday and getting fired ... classy.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  I think they realized that having a time-sensitive process unfold during a religious holiday when observant individuals would be forbidden from being online (guessing here) was not a good idea. It could give the impression that they were trying to ramrod something through when a certain group of people would not be able to weigh in.
6nf 7y ago
So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded, and they still won't reinstate her. Nothing to see here.
- zeta0134 7y ago
  > So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded Direct from the apology: > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. > ...and they still won't reinstate her. Again, a direct quote from the apology: > We’ll be sharing with our moderators this week our proposed processes for handling situations like this in the future. This includes a process for handling moderator removals, and a process for reinstating moderators who wish to be reinstated. I don't want to provide too much additional input in this reply, because I believe David's words adequately speak for themselves. However, I do believe that taking those two points private and discussing them outside of the public view is the correct choice. Emotions are already running high on both sides of the argument, and it's not a bad idea to give everyone a moment to breathe, and come at the situation rationally. We should give them a chance to work it out.
  - 6nf 7y ago
    According to Monica they've failed to return her emails so please understand why I'm sceptical of SE here.
  - rofrol 7y ago
    >apologize for the lack of process, privacy But not for what they did to her.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    That's kind of like punching someone in the stomach, then later apologizing for not following the correct punching procedure and for not respecting their privacy by punching them in public.
jawns 7y ago
> We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing so skipped several critical parts of the process. Okay, got it. Acting in haste can lead you to make critical errors of judgment. Smart to slow down so you don't make the same mistake again. > On Monday, October 7, we’ll be sharing a second draft of an update to our Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback. Good call. Get feedback on the revised plan from the moderators to whom it will apply. Smart move. > On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced publicly. Wait, what? You just said that you need to slow things down because you acted too quickly the last time and ended up screwing things up and causing a lot of pain, which is the reason you're apologizing in the first place. And now the timeline between "solicit feedback" and "release document publicly" is three days? How in the world are you going to be able to thoughtfully incorporate any feedback other than typo corrections and still meet this deadline? There is no reason to solicit feedback unless you actually plan to listen to it and to be prepared for that feedback to say that the draft still needs work. But this timeline does not allow enough time for that to happen.
- wendyshu 7y ago
  I suspect they've essentially decided on the new Code of Conduct and any solicitation of feedback will be perfunctory.
  - StudentStuff 7y ago
    The CoC is almost certainly already written, but this quip is a cherry on top: > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So they're going to demand she stays hush about what they say to her unless they approve? Seems extremely dishonest and scummy to try and control someone you've already wronged.
    - x0x0 7y ago
      It seems to say that StackOverflow -- as is only professional -- will not share anything unless the fired mod agrees.
fouc 7y ago
The answer by Squeamish Ossifrage is interesting because they try to call out SO on a variety of stuff that sounds like what any other large tech company tries to do, with the slow and steady tactics of trying to gain more control or power and encroaching on user rights. [0] It's also interesting to ponder if the StackOverflow community format is subjecting them to more calls of transparency than other sites might get. [0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Reddit goes through waves of the same kinds of issues.
wendyshu 7y ago
Summary: * contrition * the moderator dismissal was too hasty * they will create a process for reinstating moderators * new Code of Conduct announced Oct 11
diminoten 7y ago
I am still not clear on whether or not avoidance of pronoun use is allowed on SE...
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  You will be in less than a week, when the new CoC is officially in place.
- jcims 7y ago
  What do you mean by 'avoidance of pronoun use'...avoiding them entirely or ignoring some kind of signal about what pronoun a specific person associates with?
  - diminoten 7y ago
    How would refusing to use requested pronouns be avoiding? In what way could what I said be interpreted to mean refusal? It's not clear if speaking in passive voice will be acceptable on SE come October 10th.
    - jcims 7y ago
      Sorry I just don't know what your original comment meant and was trying to understand it better.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        Honestly, I think you do.
        jcims 7y ago
        Hey if you're on the front lines of all this i get not taking what i'm saying at face value, but for what it's worth i am just trying to understand. I think you're asking if submissions to SE will (or will not) be permitted to dodge the identity issue by writing in a way that avoids pronouns. This just seems so over the top to me that it's hard to believe, which is why I also included another option. I wouldn't call it 'refusing' as much as 'not bothering to do the legwork for every party you refer to in your content'. Which is, of course, also onerous but possibly a bit less so.
lacampbell 7y ago
Does anyone else remember the days before the tech community became filled with all these CoC writers?
- jimws 7y ago
  Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people. If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM. There are more civil ways to send the same message. CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse. Do you have a better idea?
  - lacampbell 7y ago
    Yeah, thicker skin and reading manuals. All jokes aside, there's surely a middle ground between being rude to everyone and "hi guys wowzors dinosaurs and ninjas! this project is made with <3" and the overwhelming passive-aggressiveness of this inane dumpster fire drama over CoCs.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse I can’t even conjure up an example of anything that is failing harder at it’s intended purpose, then.
  - gwright 7y ago
    Ironically it is is almost impossible to engage on this topic in a thoughtful way without stepping on some sort of social landmine. As someone who has been around for a while I find much of the back and forth in this area exhausting and at times bewildering. Treat others how you want to be treated, count to ten before replying, don't engage with annoying people, pick your battles, life isn't necessarily fair. This sort of advice has been around forever and I much prefer it to the legalistic CoC approach.
    - gdy 7y ago
      "pick your battles, life isn't necessarily fair" What is that supposed to mean?
glorious 7y ago
My preferred pronoun is nigger, and everyone must refer to me by that.
AzzieElbab 7y ago
will this be followed by an apology for being rushed and shallow or will the new CoCs take care of the nonsense known as nuanced thinking?
loraa 7y ago
Wow. This is the shit we are whining about these days... Woooooow
gnicholas 7y ago
> We’ll keep those discussions (with the erstwhile mod) completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. Does this mean they're looking to prevent the mod from speaking out unless SE agrees to public release? Or is the first "we" (in "We'll") different from the second we ("unless we both")? Hopefully this is just sloppy/rushed drafting, not forced secrecy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tus88 7y ago
I used to participate in SO but it is really turning into a hit n run site for me now. Overzealous duplicate and notconstructive flags combined with the dumbing everything down for new users policy made it frustrating and unrewarding experience. It still is to be frank when the "answer matches actual question in title" rate is about 10%, but what else is there?
- mistermann 7y ago
  It's sad what it's become. Are Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky still involved? It seems hard to believe they could mismanage SO as thoroughly as this without having a complete change in personality.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    It looks like Jeff Atwood left in 2012 to create Discourse [1], and Joel Spolsky recently stepped down as CEO [2]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/jeff-atwood-bids-adieu-to-stack-exchange-for-the-best-reason-ever/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/jeff-atwood-bids-adieu-to-... [2] https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/24/announcing-stack-overflows-new-ceo-prashanth-chandrasekar/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/24/announcing-stack-overf...
- karlshea 7y ago
  I agree, I was actually watching this situation with glee, hoping every moderator on the entire site would quit en-masse. Maybe then it would be useful again.
  - MauranKilom 7y ago
    Anyone who thinks that moderators quitting will stop questions being closed as dupes doesn't understand how StackOverflow works. The moderators are the ones doing the absolute dirtywork of handling cases of abuse, harassment, vandalism, spam, vote fraud, and so on. If half the mods quit, all you get in return is more spam and hostile comments. The remaining community will keep closing questions like before - that's simply not the job of moderators.
swiley 7y ago
Darn I might have to peel the SO sticker off the back of my MacBook.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  SO has been on the decline quite long already, drowning in a sea of homework question, fix my bugs beggars and editors running perfectly fine answers. finding relevant solutions is as hard as ever and asking moderately difficult questions just gets you nowhere. long standing issues, like a way to tag library versions to avoid people ending in stale answers or restrict your area of expertise properly as to be able to quickly network with other in the field working on the same problem were never addressed, meanwhile we got a disfunctional job board that did the opposite of attracting talent, resulting instead in a horde of resume padding desperados copy pasting answer off a script in all questions tagged java or xml the moment to remove that sticker was c.a 2013
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Heh, I hadn't considered that. I was trying to find space for a new sticker last night, I think I may have just found my answer.
khope 7y ago
https://share.cloutbucks.com/Khope https://share.cloutbucks.com/Khope A way to make extra cash! I've made over 1,500$ so far in not even 3 weeks! Check it out!
anonymousab 7y ago
On the plus side, this issue has taken the spotlight off of the advertising and tracker issues for them.
ivalm 7y ago
I feel without a head to roll this is a little too little too late.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  This is the kind of attitude that got them into this mess in the first place.
trust07007707 7y ago
<< we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify. I am responsible for that, and I am deeply sorry. We absolutely support the LGBTQ+ community. >> GPT-2 could have written a better and more genuine apology. First of all, you don't just use the new PR formula of naming the wrong, saying you take responsibility and then saying you're sorry. You need to dig deep and identify why you committed the wrong in the first place (homophobia, sexism, mean heartedness?) and commit to therapy and reforming. Seriously.
progman32 7y ago
Codes of conduct tend to be driven by (and serve to protect) the group's intended purpose. Gender is a big part of our language for many reasons, some better than others. We should be aware of our goals when dictating what is and isn't acceptable, especially on a technical Q&A forum like StackExchange. Wanting to know someone's gender can be reasonable. But... on StackExchange? I can count on a single set of digits the number of times I've personally witnessed someone knowing someone else's gender leading to anything better than a neutral outcome. Doctors factor highly in that list. Then dates. Online people... well, only when it was extremely on-topic. Like a time I saw someone getting advice on 6-point racing harnesses vs. 5-point (re: strap geometry to protect the lower body). As an example, let's take scicomp.stackexchange.com (computational science). Neither a participant's sex nor their gender is an appropriate topic there, with few exceptions. Is a reasonable policy there to avoid all gendered pronouns when referring to other users, unless there's an on-topic reason? Is using "they" or the user's handle worse than bringing gender into the conversation, when this is clearly off-topic? Monica seems to be negotiating for the option to use gender-neutral language. What are the pitfalls if we mandate it? The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small molehill to die on. Personally, I've always found it strange that we collectively broadcast our gender so far and wide. We don't continually mention each other's race, hair color, handedness, or preferred sleeping position on every tenth word, yet we often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it so? Thoughts? Very curious to hear from others. To be clear I have no problem with someone expressing their sexuality, gender, or other aspects of their individuality. I'm a fairly odd cat myself (particulars are irrelevant) and I relish being able to express myself authentically when it's helpful to some goal. I guess I'm mostly challenging the central role gender plays in our language, and asking whether or not we should change this to allow people more flexibility in what they disclose.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  > The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small molehill to die on. It's my understanding that the issue is conflicting self expression. If in some circumstance the author feels something is awkward, are they allowed to make a judgement call? And, as moderators, are they given the agency to also make judgement calls in how they moderate? I guess you could call that a molehill, but I don't know why we need to put people out who feel otherwise. Seems like extending the same courtesy as using preferred pronouns, in a way.
nindalf 7y ago
I can’t follow what they’re apologising for because I don’t have the context on what happened. Understandably, they don’t elaborate on their mistakes and instead focus on the apology. Can anyone give a short summary of what happened?
- amq 7y ago
  A good summary and the timeline here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/ https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/
- eevilspock 7y ago
  Read this related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 ...and in particular the link in the top comment, copied here for convenience: https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html
m0zg 7y ago
This is so dumb. Just disallow people to use real names and switch to aliases completely. Voila! Nobody needs to know or worry about anyone's genders or pronouns. It's a tech forum, nobody should give a shit about your gender or lack thereof.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's not how it works. Some people will volunteer this information anyway, and then either them or someone else on their behalf will raise a stink about how the information is being ignored.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Well, ban those people then. Problem solved. They're clearly on the site to cause trouble.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      That would mean a pretty draconian anonymity policy. Haven't seen that anywhere yet. But beyond that, you start banning people for revealing gender pronouns, you risk finding yourself trending on Twitter for sexual discrimination and transphobia - after all, you've been banning people for revealing their gender pronouns, which will be shortened to "for their gender pronouns"...
      - antisemiotic 7y ago
        I'm not sure if it's possible to please everyone in a world where it's easier to call a lynch mob than to parse a compound sentence.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        I see what you're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site is used in accordance with the terms. I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn't care less about pronouns one way or the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In fact I'd prefer it that way. And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It's not like people would stop using SO just because a few activists shit on it on Twitter.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
I honestly think the admin of that site is living on another planet. SO is an pretty hostile place relative to other help sites. But to beginners. I have no idea where all this drama and handwringing over gender and sexual orientation is coming from. How/why would you even know somebody's sex or sexual orientation on a site mostly concerned with tech support and science questions?
anjc 7y ago
> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically > thank you for acknowledging that. I will be able to sleep in peace tonight knowing that I have still a place here If users were genuinely unable to sleep because one random faceless person asked if they could continue their practice of only using gender neutral pronouns, then this seems to be a situation in which you shouldn't apologise to them, because they'll never be satisfied. It must be a nightmare being assigned to a CoC project now.
mwyah 7y ago
You just have to look at the Twitter feeds of these two to see why things are going where they are going. https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps https://twitter.com/df07 https://twitter.com/df07
nudpiedo 7y ago
> Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made [members of the LGBTQ+ community] a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify I wonder how is that possible, the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to be and regarding QA, is there any question in which people cannot ask anything and should not be replied with a proper rationalized argumentation? How does it help a bullied child to be the protected kid of the teacher? In the other hand the day we stop having open debates, QA and knowledge, we will be going backwards in scientific evolution, no matter what the topic is.
- mhuffman 7y ago
  It really is absurd! Bullying anyone for anything will already get you kicked off of those sites. It is such an odd hill for them to want to die on.
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  > the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to be A queer mod that resigned shortly before all of this went off actually elaborated on this in their resignation: > They [the community managers] draw vocal bigots from the woodwork with prompts to discussion, and then vanish, forcing us to decide between tacit approval through silence or defense of our own against an unchanging torrent of bigotry. I think they hope that the more we share, the better the situation will become. That has never been true. Note that just because the core QA does not leave much space for harassment doesn't mean the other aspects of the site (comments, chat, mod chat, flags, mod messages etc.) are home free. In particular, there was no shortage of "prompts to discussion" in the context of the recent events.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
logicchains 7y ago
Does anyone else find it ironic that Stack Exchange, a company which replaced a website that was often misnamed "ExpertSexchange", is now going through controversy related to the misnaming of sexchanged people?
mlang23 7y ago
Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally joined for the technical aspect, which felt like a byproduct at the time I left again. And I am a member of a fringe group. But I would never ever behave like most SJWs seem to do these days. And now downvote me, for not agreeing with the underpriviledged.
- skrebbel 7y ago
  FYI, I think that your comment has merit, but I simply can't bring myself to upvote comments that ask to be downvoted.
- nabla9 7y ago
  In the 80's I would have called your response as typical feminine response because it's focuses on personal narrative, it's sharing emotion and displaying typical feminine passive aggression using personal narrative and no details that would move discussion forward. Even the 80s sexist me would downvote you because the style and argumentation is not considered manly and rational.
  - mlang23 7y ago
    Wow, you are pretty funny! Accusing me of being feminine in a thread like this. May I ask, what drugs are you on?
    - xxs 7y ago
      I think it was sarcasm...
      - mlang23 7y ago
        Hard to tell in a time like this...
    - nabla9 7y ago
      Not you. Your response. It's tone and it's content. Before the positive impact from SJWs the passive aggressive emotional tone you used was associated with femininity.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Stack Overflow is just beginning this new stage in its growth Growth? Well that’s optimistic.
rando444 7y ago
From the comments.. for anyone that didn't scroll all the way: Before "apologizing", you need to come clean: did you lie? Earlier, you (Stack Exchange) wrote: >We removed a moderator for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change that behavior. However, Monica disputed that she had received repeated requests to change her behavior. Clearly one party here is lying, and much of the community believes that party is Stack Exchange. So—did you lie, or not? Your "apology" is meaningless until you clean this up.
- novaleaf 7y ago
  neither party may be lying. for example, Monica may not have received explicit official reprimands, however SO may feel that rejecting her position multiple times during communications meets this criteria.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    That’s a pretty low bar and if accepted will place a chilling effect on any debate in moderator lounges. Note that the essence of the debate is: “you must always use the person’s nominated pronouns” versus “you can write in such a way that pronouns aren’t used at all.” To me there is a huge difference between, “you can write inclusively without talking about a person in the third or second person” and “I refuse to accept this attempt at inclusive regulation.” But we will see what SO dredges up in order to justify their position that debates in a moderator lounge are the equivalent to formal requests.
    - novaleaf 7y ago
      Oh I agree that it's a ridiculous reason and SO needs to clean up it's act. I just don't think fixating on very small factual ambiguities helps anything except political ratholeing.
- jolmg 7y ago
  I think this is probably the most important part of this whole issue, whether or not Stack Exchange is acting in good faith. And it's true, how can anything they say be trusted anymore if they would lie like that to the community? Whether or not they lied, I wish they'd say something about it. Staying silent about it really gives a bad impression.
elisharobinson 7y ago
from my limited understanding of the issue some dude/dude-et got thrown out of Stack Overflow Moderators. Big deal to me stack exchange operates like a party you both add value and get value and if you shit in puch bowl you get thrown out. Now please let me know who shat or didnt shit in the punchbowl the contents of the shit and does anyone even drink fruit punch !! fight !!
mathattack 7y ago
Seems like now is the time for the new CEO to make themself public.
wruza 7y ago
I read this thread, read topvoted links to meta and still not sure if I get what’s happening. Is it that ‘they’ does not count as a neutral addressing anymore? If yes, what’s the solution?
- newsgremlin 7y ago
  I feel like I've wasted my time reading into this controversy for how absurd it sounds unless I'm missing some other crucial information. From what I've gathered from the various references, a mod questioned if the use of gender neutral pronouns such as "they" would be acceptable in response to new rules being announced to moderators that the persons specified pronouns should be used. Despite the fact these rules were not even implemented officially, the mod was terminated immediately. Now what we see here is them backtracking, but I don't believe they have reinstated the mod. So I don't believe they think are truly remorseful and have realized they overstepped the mark.
  - wruza 7y ago
    So that’s what happened. Thanks for your time and explanation!
  - MauranKilom 7y ago
    It's kind of the reverse: The mod in question adamantly refused singular "they" in particular, not for religious or transphobic but rather stylistic reasons (from what I could find). But that's hours of chat and months of context boiled down into one third-hand sentence. SE has not said whether this in particular was the cause for the firing, but it seems evident. Regardless, there is no indication that SE intends to undo the firing.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Thank you for summing up. What I still don't quite get is: did the mod reject singular they a) when preference was unknown (ie: prefer to rewrite), b) reject singular they, when preferred (someone not identifying as male/female), c) Choose the conventional "he" over singular they when preference was unknown?k8s From what I've read it's a) - and it's pretty hard for me to imagine a scenario in which that seems like a good reason to drop a moderator. Also, is this a volunteer being kicked, or is it some kind of paid position? Ed: from tfa: "Second, we hurt a longstanding member of the community and an important volunteer moderator." So I guess that answers my last question.
marble-drink 7y ago
Oh for crying out loud. I do not care, or want to know, what kind of sex you like to have. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? By the way, In case you are under any doubt, I identify as a man, I prefer the pronouns he, him and his, and several times a week I like to insert my penis into a vagina and move it in and out until I ejaculate. Am I doing this right?
aezakmi 7y ago
dumb wypipo.
Just1689 7y ago
I would encourage Monica to watch out for any "Let's keep this private" language. In situations like this one some organizations have tried to disempower people by barring them from discussion with advisors, family or others. Another way they do this is by saying, as in the apology "keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community" but they will phrase it as a binding agreement.
goto11 7y ago
Totally unrelated to the matter of hand, but I find it amazing that SE now have forums like "Christianity", "Judaism" etc. where people can upvote and downvote religious questions and answers, and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and that. Edit: I didn't mean to imply that the answers are actually Gods opinion! Just found it fascinating that a site specifically designed for technical questions have grown to encompass questions about what Jesus meant with a certain phrase.
- jsgo 7y ago
  Don’t think that’s the specific purpose. Seems more geared to “who did what,” “what is meant by this passage,” etc. That may seem to be “accepted answer about what God’s opinion is” but I’d imagine the intent is to aggregate what is online for interpretations. To be fair, their format is probably well suited to it. Multiple opinions given with rank based on similarity to what others interpret it to be, but multiple interpretations, should they exist, should be listed there.
- skissane 7y ago
  It is totally possible to ask (or even answer) a question about a religion without believing in it. "What are the differences between Shi'a and Sunni belief?" is a totally valid question even if you are an atheist or a Hindu. The answer to "What does the Catholic Church teach about abortion?" is totally independent of your own personal views on the topic. One doesn't have to be a believer in a religion to be able to answer factual questions about it. Sometimes, an atheist, or a follower of a competing religion, may actually know more about a religion's teachings and history than many of the people who actually believe in it do, and so may actually be able to give more accurate answers about it than some of its own members can.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and that. You're misrepresenting the idea behind those sites. The questions there don't ask about god's option. They (usually) ask about customs, about text interpretations, about rules of given church / denomination, about texts relating to a given situation, and many other things. (Of course there are some exceptions) You don't have to believe in them to respect people's choice to engage with religion and look for a way to live their life. For example recent questions in christianity right now: "Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel?", "What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16?", "What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion?". Those aren't even questions about beliefs.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kangnkodos 7y ago
In legal cases, it often happens that the first person to be accused of violating a new regulation often gets a slap on the wrist. For example, if a brand new tax regulation is vague, the first person accused of violating that regulation has a drastically reduced penalty, or just a warning. Along with that, the judge writes a clarification so there can be no mistakes the next time. The clarification sends a clear message to the community that the next person accused will not get a break. Perhaps, based on third or fourth party accounts, Monica was repeatedly asked to use specific pronouns in a moderators-only chat. If that is true, she may have driven one or more moderators away from participating there, and violated the existing CoC. However, even if all those accusations against Monica are true, since there is no established procedure for removing a moderator, it would seem that the "judge(s)" in the new process to remove or re-instate Monica could walk a very fine line. The judge(s) could declare Monica guilty of those offenses, but give her a lenient sentence. Perhaps re-instated, but under probation or double-secret-probation. I hope David Fullerton and his coworkers have the wisdom to consider this course of action.
cryptonector 7y ago
Whatever else anyone thinks of this brouhaha, I'd say that this answer is extremely useful: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294

282 points by SnarkAsh 7y ago

dang 7y ago

I think these are the main previous threads, in reverse order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344

609venezia 7y ago
For other folks who might have made the same misreading I did: This thread is a new post from stack, not another link to 21153224 which has the similar title "update to our community and an apology" The new post is @ 199 upvotes versus -1278, so the reception so far seems to be very different

Lazare 7y ago

A bit late, but a good response, I'd say.

barry-cotter 7y ago

Mostly another non-apology. Not sorry for what they did, but for doing it arbitrarily, without following a procedure, and for not taking account of the Jewish holiday Monica was observing. Instead of just imposing the CoC they’re going to rush it through three days of discussion, then impose it.

shkkmo 7y ago
They all acknowledge that they made mistakes, name those mistakes reasonably accurately, take personal responsibility for those mistakes and apologize for the harm those mistakes caused. What else were you looking to see? I would have liked to see more of an explanation of why these mistakes were made, but this is a far better apology than the last one. Of course, an apology is just words and should be taken with a grain of salt until actions are taken to back up those words. It seems to me that they could easily have reached out to Monica BEFORE posting a public apology. We will see how they handle feedback on the new CoC and what other actions they will take to restore trust.
ahuth 7y ago
I don't know, seems pretty apology-y. I'm not familiar with what happened, but here he repeatedly stated "I am responsible for that".
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? > We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So unless they agree to it, she can't publish what they talk about in private, no matter the words spoken or the outcome. That's such a weird commitment to privacy in this context, it's not like this has anything to do with private stuff as far as the moderator is concerned, unless I'm completely mistaken. So it's basically offering a conversation with the option on their part to pretend there never was a conversation, should it fail to achieve the goal they no doubt already outlined in meetings.
  - phnofive 7y ago
    Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. She’s been discussing this openly, so it reads like a threat to keep all future grievances private unless SO allows otherwise if there’s any hope of being reinstated.
  - Lazare 7y ago
    > It would take them a few clicks to undo their mistake and reinstate the mod, no? I'm not convinced that removing Monica as a moderator was a mistake. She made it clear in a comment quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. And in the leaked transcripts (if you trust them) it seems she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused. Obviously SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication (which is what they apologised for), but ultimately it seems that she's just not not a good fit for SO. There's no suggestion that SO is not going to enforce a rule requiring moderators to use people's preferred pronouns, when known and when appropriate, and Monica was very clear that in at least some cases she would not do so. So...one way or another, she was clearly going to be removed, right? Arguably she could be re-instated today and then re-removed later in the week when the CoC changes come into force, but to what end? That doesn't help her, SO, or the community. (And that assumes she didn't violate the existing CoC, which is still disputed.)
mellosouls 7y ago
Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling, although it's late and a response to the snowballing community reaction rather than because it's the right thing to do. Of course, it's possible that that reaction has prompted genuine reflection and contrition and the apology is sincere as well as a panic measure.
- protomyth 7y ago
  Groveling isn't an apology. If you ever have to make an apology of this type, always apologize to individuals before groups and before stating your mission. It reads better and gives the impression you care about the person. Also, undo what you did if you can, otherwise it's "sorry, not sorry".
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    A grovelling apology is certainly an apology, even if sometimes unseemly and issued in desperation rather than (or in addition to) regret. But sure, there might be better ways to do it.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      A grovelling apology is certainly an apology Well, yes by definition, but groveling is not, in and of itself, an apology. Generally in an apology you undo what damage you did to the maximum extent allowable or offer some sort of compensation.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        That is not how any apology I've heard of has ever worked. Apologies are an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or of pain caused, usually combined with an attempt to avoid the same wrongdoing in the future. All of that is evident here. Actions to make right a prior wrong (of which there are some here too) are not normally a requirement, although they can apology.

d23 7y ago

Not sure if it's been covered, but I started getting spam emails from them for the first time too.

shkkmo 7y ago
This response covers some additional issues people would like to see addressed, but does not mention that complaint. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573
swasheck 7y ago
I tried unsubscribing but none of the options actually worked. I stopped participating in the network about two years ago and I can’t say I’m disappointed.

twirlock 7y ago

Terrible apology. Codes of conduct are oppressive, officious trash being pushed by literal communist meddlers. The technorati are becoming insufferable.

blondin 7y ago

i mean... most people are already on the moderator side, but she might need to take it slow too. i might be reading all this wrong but she is coming off as the side that is slightly aggressive to me. she's been going at every single post they make or people on these post. i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything.

kaishiro 7y ago
She feels wronged. What’s the issue with her engaging in the ensuing discourse?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything. From what I've gathered, there seems to be additional angle here in which SE talked to the press, apparently using her real name and telling falsehoods about her, and now her name is attached to a slanderous story. This means for her it's no longer about a volunteer position at a tech company, but about her entire life. EDIT: here's the article in question: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_controversy/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont....

miles 7y ago

From a comment by rolfl[0]: > This apology has come not a moment too soon.... for the past days, almost a week, now, moderators from across most sites have collaborated on communicating our concerns to the SE staff. We have been working "in plain sight" of the SE staff (using the TL to collaborate). ... The timing of this apology appears to have been in a race to beat our statements about the issues. The comment was updated to include a link to https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-e... , which in turn links to: https://dearstackexchange.com https://dearstackexchange.com . [0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001

larkeith 7y ago
Note that Fullerton's apology lacks any reference to Stack Exchange's turn towards the press during the controversy. As brought up in the Dear Stack Exchange letter (and in numerous Meta posts over the last week), it is concerning that SE would be willing to make a (potentially libelous) statement to the press, while refusing the same to the community. This conspicuous absence makes me question the authenticity of the apology.
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  In this post, Mr Fullerton 'takes the brunt' of the blame, clearly defusing any more singular issues with the various individuals involved. This has the unfortunate side effect of highlighting how SE is not a community run system, but is more of an oligarchy. One wonders how it could have been handled better, but still, all decisions went through one person and it wasn't a community that did it.
  - _Understated_ 7y ago
    My take on that decision is it's because SE is a business: They use the community to MAKE money. Now, it's not entirely one-way as they need to be providing value to the community in order for it to continue but business decisions need to be made at some level and the community level isn't the place for it. If SE perceived a loss in profits from community members' actions then they need to take steps to mitigate that loss and I suspect that's what they did(rightly or wrongly). Not trying to defend SE's actions, or those of the community (I have no opinion on the matter and, not to make light of the issue, I don't really care either) but a mistake that I sometimes make is thinking businesses make decisions for reasons other than profit. In saying that, if SE thought that putting it to a community vote (or whatever best decision making tool the community could use) would make them more money then they likely would have... makes good business sense. Just my £0.02

guardiangod 7y ago

My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step. However, the update accumulated to the 'fix' being SO will release an updated CoC on Oct 7/10/11 with inputs from all mods, and an updated mod firing process. These are absolutely essential, no doubt, but incomplete. What is missing, in my opinion, is the update still did not address how the original conflict came to the firing of a respected member. The most sincere way to apologize would be to use this failure of process as an example, to showcase how SO erred and how SO intends to change. Finally, a separate, public apology to the fired mod, with specific example of how SO mishandled each step, is crucial in regaining the trust. EDIT: After giving some thoughts, I realize that SO is apologizing, not for wrongful termination, but for not privately firing the mod with due process. In SO's management eyes, the firing is still justified. Fine. Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.

marcinzm 7y ago
>Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions. It's clear they have no desire to explain and would very much prefer nothing further is made public: >We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.
emmelaich 7y ago
I can't really understand this sentence of yours > My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step. in particular with the "yet". Would it be a better first step without apologies?
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  It reads like a clinical PR piece. Mostly it reads as they're sorry it blew up in their face, and it doesn't really feel like they're sorry about what they did except harm themselves. Then again, I might just be a bit jaded like GP.

throwawaypolicy 7y ago

> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify. So wait - what are they apologizing for? If I understand this situation correctly there are basically two sides: - The people who put in place the new code of conduct, who think that they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn't participate authentically..." by not putting this code of conduct in place fast enough. - The moderator who fired/the people who resigned who think they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they couldn't participate authentically..." when they put in place the new poorly thought out policy Is this intended to double (triple? quadruple?) down on the original position? Or apologize for it and move to the second?

Lazare 7y ago
They are apologising for 1) not implementing the new CoC fast enough and 2) not being clear enough when they did, which led to people arguing about what happened, whether a CoC is even a good idea, whether or not people should be forced to use other people's preferred pronouns, etc. So yes, this is intended to strictly double down on the original position.
sah2ed 7y ago
This resignation notice [0] coincided closely with the Judaism moderator's firing by SE. It should provide a bit more context with respect to their apology to the LGBTQ+ community that felt let down by SE: 0: https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/resignation-notice https://literature.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/res...

ykevinator 7y ago

Oh my god, get over yourself, it's not that important in our lives.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kelvin0 7y ago

Not sure I understand what happened and who why people were offended. If there's wrongdoing by SO, what does this have to do with a holiday(jewish or other)? Thanks for clarifications and filling in the gaps for me.

protomyth 7y ago
She is Jewish. They canned her at 6pm EST on a Friday then were a bit flippant about it using the no-class phrase We learned (or were painfully reminded, rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday in a previous update. It was also before a Jewish holiday. This is not the way to treat people, but, if you think cynically, is an excellent way to make sure you have time before the person fired can make a proper response depending on how they practice.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  To clarify further, they removed her moderator privileges but didn't actually tell her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
Lazare 7y ago
SO removed a Jewish mod during a Jewish holiday, when she would not be using the internet. She complained about it, and they apologised for the timing.
- kelvin0 7y ago
  Oh, the mod was observing a holiday (during which internet usage is usually not possible) and got 'fired' right beforehand. Ah, kinda like getting a 5PM meeting on a friday and getting fired ... classy.
gnicholas 7y ago
I think they realized that having a time-sensitive process unfold during a religious holiday when observant individuals would be forbidden from being online (guessing here) was not a good idea. It could give the impression that they were trying to ramrod something through when a certain group of people would not be able to weigh in.

6nf 7y ago

So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded, and they still won't reinstate her. Nothing to see here.

zeta0134 7y ago
> So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded Direct from the apology: > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. > ...and they still won't reinstate her. Again, a direct quote from the apology: > We’ll be sharing with our moderators this week our proposed processes for handling situations like this in the future. This includes a process for handling moderator removals, and a process for reinstating moderators who wish to be reinstated. I don't want to provide too much additional input in this reply, because I believe David's words adequately speak for themselves. However, I do believe that taking those two points private and discussing them outside of the public view is the correct choice. Emotions are already running high on both sides of the argument, and it's not a bad idea to give everyone a moment to breathe, and come at the situation rationally. We should give them a chance to work it out.
- 6nf 7y ago
  According to Monica they've failed to return her emails so please understand why I'm sceptical of SE here.
- rofrol 7y ago
  >apologize for the lack of process, privacy But not for what they did to her.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  That's kind of like punching someone in the stomach, then later apologizing for not following the correct punching procedure and for not respecting their privacy by punching them in public.

jawns 7y ago

> We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing so skipped several critical parts of the process. Okay, got it. Acting in haste can lead you to make critical errors of judgment. Smart to slow down so you don't make the same mistake again. > On Monday, October 7, we’ll be sharing a second draft of an update to our Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback. Good call. Get feedback on the revised plan from the moderators to whom it will apply. Smart move. > On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced publicly. Wait, what? You just said that you need to slow things down because you acted too quickly the last time and ended up screwing things up and causing a lot of pain, which is the reason you're apologizing in the first place. And now the timeline between "solicit feedback" and "release document publicly" is three days? How in the world are you going to be able to thoughtfully incorporate any feedback other than typo corrections and still meet this deadline? There is no reason to solicit feedback unless you actually plan to listen to it and to be prepared for that feedback to say that the draft still needs work. But this timeline does not allow enough time for that to happen.

wendyshu 7y ago
I suspect they've essentially decided on the new Code of Conduct and any solicitation of feedback will be perfunctory.
- StudentStuff 7y ago
  The CoC is almost certainly already written, but this quip is a cherry on top: > We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. So they're going to demand she stays hush about what they say to her unless they approve? Seems extremely dishonest and scummy to try and control someone you've already wronged.
  - x0x0 7y ago
    It seems to say that StackOverflow -- as is only professional -- will not share anything unless the fired mod agrees.

fouc 7y ago

The answer by Squeamish Ossifrage is interesting because they try to call out SO on a variety of stuff that sounds like what any other large tech company tries to do, with the slow and steady tactics of trying to gain more control or power and encroaching on user rights. [0] It's also interesting to ponder if the StackOverflow community format is subjecting them to more calls of transparency than other sites might get. [0] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573

humanrebar 7y ago
Reddit goes through waves of the same kinds of issues.

wendyshu 7y ago

Summary: * contrition * the moderator dismissal was too hasty * they will create a process for reinstating moderators * new Code of Conduct announced Oct 11

diminoten 7y ago

I am still not clear on whether or not avoidance of pronoun use is allowed on SE...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
You will be in less than a week, when the new CoC is officially in place.
jcims 7y ago
What do you mean by 'avoidance of pronoun use'...avoiding them entirely or ignoring some kind of signal about what pronoun a specific person associates with?
- diminoten 7y ago
  How would refusing to use requested pronouns be avoiding? In what way could what I said be interpreted to mean refusal? It's not clear if speaking in passive voice will be acceptable on SE come October 10th.
  - jcims 7y ago
    Sorry I just don't know what your original comment meant and was trying to understand it better.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      Honestly, I think you do.
      - jcims 7y ago
        Hey if you're on the front lines of all this i get not taking what i'm saying at face value, but for what it's worth i am just trying to understand. I think you're asking if submissions to SE will (or will not) be permitted to dodge the identity issue by writing in a way that avoids pronouns. This just seems so over the top to me that it's hard to believe, which is why I also included another option. I wouldn't call it 'refusing' as much as 'not bothering to do the legwork for every party you refer to in your content'. Which is, of course, also onerous but possibly a bit less so.

lacampbell 7y ago

Does anyone else remember the days before the tech community became filled with all these CoC writers?

jimws 7y ago
Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people. If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM. There are more civil ways to send the same message. CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse. Do you have a better idea?
- lacampbell 7y ago
  Yeah, thicker skin and reading manuals. All jokes aside, there's surely a middle ground between being rude to everyone and "hi guys wowzors dinosaurs and ninjas! this project is made with <3" and the overwhelming passive-aggressiveness of this inane dumpster fire drama over CoCs.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse I can’t even conjure up an example of anything that is failing harder at it’s intended purpose, then.
- gwright 7y ago
  Ironically it is is almost impossible to engage on this topic in a thoughtful way without stepping on some sort of social landmine. As someone who has been around for a while I find much of the back and forth in this area exhausting and at times bewildering. Treat others how you want to be treated, count to ten before replying, don't engage with annoying people, pick your battles, life isn't necessarily fair. This sort of advice has been around forever and I much prefer it to the legalistic CoC approach.
  - gdy 7y ago
    "pick your battles, life isn't necessarily fair" What is that supposed to mean?

glorious 7y ago

My preferred pronoun is nigger, and everyone must refer to me by that.

AzzieElbab 7y ago

will this be followed by an apology for being rushed and shallow or will the new CoCs take care of the nonsense known as nuanced thinking?

loraa 7y ago

Wow. This is the shit we are whining about these days... Woooooow

gnicholas 7y ago

> We’ll keep those discussions (with the erstwhile mod) completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community. Does this mean they're looking to prevent the mod from speaking out unless SE agrees to public release? Or is the first "we" (in "We'll") different from the second we ("unless we both")? Hopefully this is just sloppy/rushed drafting, not forced secrecy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tus88 7y ago

I used to participate in SO but it is really turning into a hit n run site for me now. Overzealous duplicate and notconstructive flags combined with the dumbing everything down for new users policy made it frustrating and unrewarding experience. It still is to be frank when the "answer matches actual question in title" rate is about 10%, but what else is there?

mistermann 7y ago
It's sad what it's become. Are Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky still involved? It seems hard to believe they could mismanage SO as thoroughly as this without having a complete change in personality.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  It looks like Jeff Atwood left in 2012 to create Discourse [1], and Joel Spolsky recently stepped down as CEO [2]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/jeff-atwood-bids-adieu-to-stack-exchange-for-the-best-reason-ever/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/07/jeff-atwood-bids-adieu-to-... [2] https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/24/announcing-stack-overflows-new-ceo-prashanth-chandrasekar/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/24/announcing-stack-overf...
karlshea 7y ago
I agree, I was actually watching this situation with glee, hoping every moderator on the entire site would quit en-masse. Maybe then it would be useful again.
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  Anyone who thinks that moderators quitting will stop questions being closed as dupes doesn't understand how StackOverflow works. The moderators are the ones doing the absolute dirtywork of handling cases of abuse, harassment, vandalism, spam, vote fraud, and so on. If half the mods quit, all you get in return is more spam and hostile comments. The remaining community will keep closing questions like before - that's simply not the job of moderators.

swiley 7y ago

Darn I might have to peel the SO sticker off the back of my MacBook.

LoSboccacc 7y ago
SO has been on the decline quite long already, drowning in a sea of homework question, fix my bugs beggars and editors running perfectly fine answers. finding relevant solutions is as hard as ever and asking moderately difficult questions just gets you nowhere. long standing issues, like a way to tag library versions to avoid people ending in stale answers or restrict your area of expertise properly as to be able to quickly network with other in the field working on the same problem were never addressed, meanwhile we got a disfunctional job board that did the opposite of attracting talent, resulting instead in a horde of resume padding desperados copy pasting answer off a script in all questions tagged java or xml the moment to remove that sticker was c.a 2013
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Heh, I hadn't considered that. I was trying to find space for a new sticker last night, I think I may have just found my answer.

khope 7y ago

https://share.cloutbucks.com/Khope https://share.cloutbucks.com/Khope A way to make extra cash! I've made over 1,500$ so far in not even 3 weeks! Check it out!

anonymousab 7y ago

On the plus side, this issue has taken the spotlight off of the advertising and tracker issues for them.

ivalm 7y ago

I feel without a head to roll this is a little too little too late.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
This is the kind of attitude that got them into this mess in the first place.

trust07007707 7y ago

<< we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify. I am responsible for that, and I am deeply sorry. We absolutely support the LGBTQ+ community. >> GPT-2 could have written a better and more genuine apology. First of all, you don't just use the new PR formula of naming the wrong, saying you take responsibility and then saying you're sorry. You need to dig deep and identify why you committed the wrong in the first place (homophobia, sexism, mean heartedness?) and commit to therapy and reforming. Seriously.

progman32 7y ago

Codes of conduct tend to be driven by (and serve to protect) the group's intended purpose. Gender is a big part of our language for many reasons, some better than others. We should be aware of our goals when dictating what is and isn't acceptable, especially on a technical Q&A forum like StackExchange. Wanting to know someone's gender can be reasonable. But... on StackExchange? I can count on a single set of digits the number of times I've personally witnessed someone knowing someone else's gender leading to anything better than a neutral outcome. Doctors factor highly in that list. Then dates. Online people... well, only when it was extremely on-topic. Like a time I saw someone getting advice on 6-point racing harnesses vs. 5-point (re: strap geometry to protect the lower body). As an example, let's take scicomp.stackexchange.com (computational science). Neither a participant's sex nor their gender is an appropriate topic there, with few exceptions. Is a reasonable policy there to avoid all gendered pronouns when referring to other users, unless there's an on-topic reason? Is using "they" or the user's handle worse than bringing gender into the conversation, when this is clearly off-topic? Monica seems to be negotiating for the option to use gender-neutral language. What are the pitfalls if we mandate it? The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small molehill to die on. Personally, I've always found it strange that we collectively broadcast our gender so far and wide. We don't continually mention each other's race, hair color, handedness, or preferred sleeping position on every tenth word, yet we often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it so? Thoughts? Very curious to hear from others. To be clear I have no problem with someone expressing their sexuality, gender, or other aspects of their individuality. I'm a fairly odd cat myself (particulars are irrelevant) and I relish being able to express myself authentically when it's helpful to some goal. I guess I'm mostly challenging the central role gender plays in our language, and asking whether or not we should change this to allow people more flexibility in what they disclose.

humanrebar 7y ago
> The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small molehill to die on. It's my understanding that the issue is conflicting self expression. If in some circumstance the author feels something is awkward, are they allowed to make a judgement call? And, as moderators, are they given the agency to also make judgement calls in how they moderate? I guess you could call that a molehill, but I don't know why we need to put people out who feel otherwise. Seems like extending the same courtesy as using preferred pronouns, in a way.

nindalf 7y ago

I can’t follow what they’re apologising for because I don’t have the context on what happened. Understandably, they don’t elaborate on their mistakes and instead focus on the apology. Can anyone give a short summary of what happened?

amq 7y ago
A good summary and the timeline here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/ https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/
eevilspock 7y ago
Read this related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176712 ...and in particular the link in the top comment, copied here for convenience: https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2064709.html

m0zg 7y ago

This is so dumb. Just disallow people to use real names and switch to aliases completely. Voila! Nobody needs to know or worry about anyone's genders or pronouns. It's a tech forum, nobody should give a shit about your gender or lack thereof.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's not how it works. Some people will volunteer this information anyway, and then either them or someone else on their behalf will raise a stink about how the information is being ignored.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Well, ban those people then. Problem solved. They're clearly on the site to cause trouble.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    That would mean a pretty draconian anonymity policy. Haven't seen that anywhere yet. But beyond that, you start banning people for revealing gender pronouns, you risk finding yourself trending on Twitter for sexual discrimination and transphobia - after all, you've been banning people for revealing their gender pronouns, which will be shortened to "for their gender pronouns"...
    - antisemiotic 7y ago
      I'm not sure if it's possible to please everyone in a world where it's easier to call a lynch mob than to parse a compound sentence.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      I see what you're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site is used in accordance with the terms. I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn't care less about pronouns one way or the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In fact I'd prefer it that way. And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It's not like people would stop using SO just because a few activists shit on it on Twitter.

cybersnowflake 7y ago

I honestly think the admin of that site is living on another planet. SO is an pretty hostile place relative to other help sites. But to beginners. I have no idea where all this drama and handwringing over gender and sexual orientation is coming from. How/why would you even know somebody's sex or sexual orientation on a site mostly concerned with tech support and science questions?

anjc 7y ago

> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t participate authentically > thank you for acknowledging that. I will be able to sleep in peace tonight knowing that I have still a place here If users were genuinely unable to sleep because one random faceless person asked if they could continue their practice of only using gender neutral pronouns, then this seems to be a situation in which you shouldn't apologise to them, because they'll never be satisfied. It must be a nightmare being assigned to a CoC project now.

mwyah 7y ago

You just have to look at the Twitter feeds of these two to see why things are going where they are going. https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps https://twitter.com/df07 https://twitter.com/df07

nudpiedo 7y ago

> Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made [members of the LGBTQ+ community] a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify I wonder how is that possible, the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to be and regarding QA, is there any question in which people cannot ask anything and should not be replied with a proper rationalized argumentation? How does it help a bullied child to be the protected kid of the teacher? In the other hand the day we stop having open debates, QA and knowledge, we will be going backwards in scientific evolution, no matter what the topic is.

mhuffman 7y ago
It really is absurd! Bullying anyone for anything will already get you kicked off of those sites. It is such an odd hill for them to want to die on.
MauranKilom 7y ago
> the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to be A queer mod that resigned shortly before all of this went off actually elaborated on this in their resignation: > They [the community managers] draw vocal bigots from the woodwork with prompts to discussion, and then vanish, forcing us to decide between tacit approval through silence or defense of our own against an unchanging torrent of bigotry. I think they hope that the more we share, the better the situation will become. That has never been true. Note that just because the core QA does not leave much space for harassment doesn't mean the other aspects of the site (comments, chat, mod chat, flags, mod messages etc.) are home free. In particular, there was no shortage of "prompts to discussion" in the context of the recent events.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

logicchains 7y ago

Does anyone else find it ironic that Stack Exchange, a company which replaced a website that was often misnamed "ExpertSexchange", is now going through controversy related to the misnaming of sexchanged people?

mlang23 7y ago

Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally joined for the technical aspect, which felt like a byproduct at the time I left again. And I am a member of a fringe group. But I would never ever behave like most SJWs seem to do these days. And now downvote me, for not agreeing with the underpriviledged.

skrebbel 7y ago
FYI, I think that your comment has merit, but I simply can't bring myself to upvote comments that ask to be downvoted.
nabla9 7y ago
In the 80's I would have called your response as typical feminine response because it's focuses on personal narrative, it's sharing emotion and displaying typical feminine passive aggression using personal narrative and no details that would move discussion forward. Even the 80s sexist me would downvote you because the style and argumentation is not considered manly and rational.
- mlang23 7y ago
  Wow, you are pretty funny! Accusing me of being feminine in a thread like this. May I ask, what drugs are you on?
  - xxs 7y ago
    I think it was sarcasm...
    - mlang23 7y ago
      Hard to tell in a time like this...
  - nabla9 7y ago
    Not you. Your response. It's tone and it's content. Before the positive impact from SJWs the passive aggressive emotional tone you used was associated with femininity.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Stack Overflow is just beginning this new stage in its growth Growth? Well that’s optimistic.

rando444 7y ago

From the comments.. for anyone that didn't scroll all the way: Before "apologizing", you need to come clean: did you lie? Earlier, you (Stack Exchange) wrote: >We removed a moderator for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change that behavior. However, Monica disputed that she had received repeated requests to change her behavior. Clearly one party here is lying, and much of the community believes that party is Stack Exchange. So—did you lie, or not? Your "apology" is meaningless until you clean this up.

novaleaf 7y ago
neither party may be lying. for example, Monica may not have received explicit official reprimands, however SO may feel that rejecting her position multiple times during communications meets this criteria.
- manicdee 7y ago
  That’s a pretty low bar and if accepted will place a chilling effect on any debate in moderator lounges. Note that the essence of the debate is: “you must always use the person’s nominated pronouns” versus “you can write in such a way that pronouns aren’t used at all.” To me there is a huge difference between, “you can write inclusively without talking about a person in the third or second person” and “I refuse to accept this attempt at inclusive regulation.” But we will see what SO dredges up in order to justify their position that debates in a moderator lounge are the equivalent to formal requests.
  - novaleaf 7y ago
    Oh I agree that it's a ridiculous reason and SO needs to clean up it's act. I just don't think fixating on very small factual ambiguities helps anything except political ratholeing.
jolmg 7y ago
I think this is probably the most important part of this whole issue, whether or not Stack Exchange is acting in good faith. And it's true, how can anything they say be trusted anymore if they would lie like that to the community? Whether or not they lied, I wish they'd say something about it. Staying silent about it really gives a bad impression.

elisharobinson 7y ago

from my limited understanding of the issue some dude/dude-et got thrown out of Stack Overflow Moderators. Big deal to me stack exchange operates like a party you both add value and get value and if you shit in puch bowl you get thrown out. Now please let me know who shat or didnt shit in the punchbowl the contents of the shit and does anyone even drink fruit punch !! fight !!

mathattack 7y ago

Seems like now is the time for the new CEO to make themself public.

wruza 7y ago

I read this thread, read topvoted links to meta and still not sure if I get what’s happening. Is it that ‘they’ does not count as a neutral addressing anymore? If yes, what’s the solution?

newsgremlin 7y ago
I feel like I've wasted my time reading into this controversy for how absurd it sounds unless I'm missing some other crucial information. From what I've gathered from the various references, a mod questioned if the use of gender neutral pronouns such as "they" would be acceptable in response to new rules being announced to moderators that the persons specified pronouns should be used. Despite the fact these rules were not even implemented officially, the mod was terminated immediately. Now what we see here is them backtracking, but I don't believe they have reinstated the mod. So I don't believe they think are truly remorseful and have realized they overstepped the mark.
- wruza 7y ago
  So that’s what happened. Thanks for your time and explanation!
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  It's kind of the reverse: The mod in question adamantly refused singular "they" in particular, not for religious or transphobic but rather stylistic reasons (from what I could find). But that's hours of chat and months of context boiled down into one third-hand sentence. SE has not said whether this in particular was the cause for the firing, but it seems evident. Regardless, there is no indication that SE intends to undo the firing.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Thank you for summing up. What I still don't quite get is: did the mod reject singular they a) when preference was unknown (ie: prefer to rewrite), b) reject singular they, when preferred (someone not identifying as male/female), c) Choose the conventional "he" over singular they when preference was unknown?k8s From what I've read it's a) - and it's pretty hard for me to imagine a scenario in which that seems like a good reason to drop a moderator. Also, is this a volunteer being kicked, or is it some kind of paid position? Ed: from tfa: "Second, we hurt a longstanding member of the community and an important volunteer moderator." So I guess that answers my last question.

marble-drink 7y ago

Oh for crying out loud. I do not care, or want to know, what kind of sex you like to have. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? By the way, In case you are under any doubt, I identify as a man, I prefer the pronouns he, him and his, and several times a week I like to insert my penis into a vagina and move it in and out until I ejaculate. Am I doing this right?

aezakmi 7y ago

dumb wypipo.

Just1689 7y ago

I would encourage Monica to watch out for any "Let's keep this private" language. In situations like this one some organizations have tried to disempower people by barring them from discussion with advisors, family or others. Another way they do this is by saying, as in the apology "keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community" but they will phrase it as a binding agreement.

goto11 7y ago

Totally unrelated to the matter of hand, but I find it amazing that SE now have forums like "Christianity", "Judaism" etc. where people can upvote and downvote religious questions and answers, and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and that. Edit: I didn't mean to imply that the answers are actually Gods opinion! Just found it fascinating that a site specifically designed for technical questions have grown to encompass questions about what Jesus meant with a certain phrase.

jsgo 7y ago
Don’t think that’s the specific purpose. Seems more geared to “who did what,” “what is meant by this passage,” etc. That may seem to be “accepted answer about what God’s opinion is” but I’d imagine the intent is to aggregate what is online for interpretations. To be fair, their format is probably well suited to it. Multiple opinions given with rank based on similarity to what others interpret it to be, but multiple interpretations, should they exist, should be listed there.
skissane 7y ago
It is totally possible to ask (or even answer) a question about a religion without believing in it. "What are the differences between Shi'a and Sunni belief?" is a totally valid question even if you are an atheist or a Hindu. The answer to "What does the Catholic Church teach about abortion?" is totally independent of your own personal views on the topic. One doesn't have to be a believer in a religion to be able to answer factual questions about it. Sometimes, an atheist, or a follower of a competing religion, may actually know more about a religion's teachings and history than many of the people who actually believe in it do, and so may actually be able to give more accurate answers about it than some of its own members can.
viraptor 7y ago
> and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and that. You're misrepresenting the idea behind those sites. The questions there don't ask about god's option. They (usually) ask about customs, about text interpretations, about rules of given church / denomination, about texts relating to a given situation, and many other things. (Of course there are some exceptions) You don't have to believe in them to respect people's choice to engage with religion and look for a way to live their life. For example recent questions in christianity right now: "Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel?", "What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16?", "What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion?". Those aren't even questions about beliefs.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kangnkodos 7y ago

In legal cases, it often happens that the first person to be accused of violating a new regulation often gets a slap on the wrist. For example, if a brand new tax regulation is vague, the first person accused of violating that regulation has a drastically reduced penalty, or just a warning. Along with that, the judge writes a clarification so there can be no mistakes the next time. The clarification sends a clear message to the community that the next person accused will not get a break. Perhaps, based on third or fourth party accounts, Monica was repeatedly asked to use specific pronouns in a moderators-only chat. If that is true, she may have driven one or more moderators away from participating there, and violated the existing CoC. However, even if all those accusations against Monica are true, since there is no established procedure for removing a moderator, it would seem that the "judge(s)" in the new process to remove or re-instate Monica could walk a very fine line. The judge(s) could declare Monica guilty of those offenses, but give her a lenient sentence. Perhaps re-instated, but under probation or double-secret-probation. I hope David Fullerton and his coworkers have the wisdom to consider this course of action.

cryptonector 7y ago

Whatever else anyone thinks of this brouhaha, I'd say that this answer is extremely useful: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294