5 ms·

Can anyone detail what exactly this is about? This link just redirects to a 404.

Arnt 7y ago
We don't know. There was a post explaining how to use pronouns, by a well-respected stackexchange.com employee, not fantastic but, well, one doesn't have to follow all the rules all the time anyway. There may also have been something else. Then a very-well-respected moderator was thrown out rather abruptly (and whatever "else" might be was surely was no fault of hers). After that, and because of various other tonedeaf behaviour on part of stackexchange.com in the past couple of years, umpty more moderators quit, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 is an example.
- Craighead 7y ago
  Rather than allowing you to continue to create your own narrative, the actual post is archived and the link is visible in this thread. So, we do know.
- Arnt 7y ago
  Replying to myself to add this link, which explains much of the anger well: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 Note that "I was there" comment.
  - brudgers 7y ago
    To me, the long-term unhappiness with StackExchange expressed in the many posts on Meta suggest the necessity of creating a tipping point. Every moderator has a chance to air their grievances. Every moderator has an opportunity to move on in a principled way when their core values conflict with the proposed workplace standards.
brudgers 7y ago
StackExchange appointed a new CEO. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange announced that a code of conduct for moderators was in the works. StackExchange indicated that one element of the still unreleased code of conduct expected moderators to use the referent's preferred gender pronoun when referring to individuals who had expressed a gender pronoun preference. StackExchange's position is that this is a direct implication of the general "be nice" expectation. The announcement also included a plan to change the license for user generated content from CC-by-SA 3.0 to CC-by-SA 4.0. My understanding is CC-by-SA 3.0 allows relicensing under "later versions" and that CC-by-SA 4.0 is considered compatible with the Gnu Public License. To me, compatibility with GPL seems reasonable for sites with freely available code. YMMV. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange revoked a moderator's status. Other moderators across the network have also quit since. In addition, StackExchange has announced it is creating a formal process for removing moderators. -- My take is that StackExchange views a moderator code of conduct as a business necessity. One of the sites the removed moderator moderated is dedicated to religious practice. This seems a place where the wider community standard regarding gender pronouns might be likely to conflict with a moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable behaviors. I suspect the moderator code of conduct has been in the works for a long time and addresses long standing problems. The obvious one is moderators deliberately behaving in ways that are at odds with the types of communities StackExchange is trying to create. The less obvious problem is moderator burnout. The recent events create a context in which anyone who wants to quit the opportunity to quit on principle. It is also a way of shedding moderator behaviors that are primarily expressions of bureaucratic power. Inertia of bound identity is a side effect of active participation in online communities. Online communities natural move to a state of insiders and outsiders. From the start, Spolsky intended for StackOverflow to avoid that social dynamic. It's a major theme of the podcasts he and Atwood made while founding StackOverflow. [1] Moderators are inherently insiders. A moderator code of conduct formalizes what it means to be an insider. It defines inside and outside in terms of business function not longevity or popularity among regulars. The code of conduct addresses the tribal behaviors that evolve in online communities by reducing the ability of moderators to build tribes arbitrarily. [1]: The first StackOverflow podcast from 2008: https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/
- jsmith45 7y ago
  A few problems with that. This was never just a moderator code of conduct, but a change to the regular code of conduct for all users. It was just revealed to moderators early. (And with the clear statement that it applied to them immediately, even though the policy was still being written.) Also, this new policy requires the use the the pronouns whenever known if you would normally use pronouns in that circumstance. [1][2] But that is for any pronoun. This includes all the weird neo-pronouns: xe, per, ze, hu, sie, kit, thon. Do you know how to conjugate all those? Most you can probably guess and be correct, but a few can be surprising). But technically the stated policy did not stop there. So if somebody says their preferred pronoun is ghaH (The Klingon third person singular intelligent pronoun), users would need to use that. I for one, have absolutely no idea how to conjugate Klingon pronouns, so I would be hard pressed to actually use that pronoun. [1]: They were really unclear about that for a while. The fired moderator wanted to know if just generally avoiding pronouns for all users was acceptable. They finally answered that as yes, but not before they totally misunderstood what she was asking and fired her. [2]: StackExchange wanted to avoid people with non-standard pronouns getting singled out by others avoiding pronouns only for these people
  - brudgers 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I've been following it generally. Not in detail because the meta discussions are just that meta and their structural form tends to be similar to other good-bye's I've read going back to usenet and bulletin boards and here on HN. What I have read makes it clear that good faith use of pronouns is consistent with "be nice" even if a particular pronoun is used in error. Personally, I think moderators quitting over the pronoun policy is evidence that it is the right move. The goodfaith way of addressing Klingon pronouns is honesty. Admit you don't know and ask the person. In general, being nice is more important than grammatical perfection. It's ok to misconjugate a pronoun. No body write perfect english all time.

Arnt 7y ago

We don't know. There was a post explaining how to use pronouns, by a well-respected stackexchange.com employee, not fantastic but, well, one doesn't have to follow all the rules all the time anyway. There may also have been something else. Then a very-well-respected moderator was thrown out rather abruptly (and whatever "else" might be was surely was no fault of hers). After that, and because of various other tonedeaf behaviour on part of stackexchange.com in the past couple of years, umpty more moderators quit, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/390427 is an example.

Craighead 7y ago
Rather than allowing you to continue to create your own narrative, the actual post is archived and the link is visible in this thread. So, we do know.
Arnt 7y ago
Replying to myself to add this link, which explains much of the anger well: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334268 Note that "I was there" comment.
- brudgers 7y ago
  To me, the long-term unhappiness with StackExchange expressed in the many posts on Meta suggest the necessity of creating a tipping point. Every moderator has a chance to air their grievances. Every moderator has an opportunity to move on in a principled way when their core values conflict with the proposed workplace standards.

brudgers 7y ago

StackExchange appointed a new CEO. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange announced that a code of conduct for moderators was in the works. StackExchange indicated that one element of the still unreleased code of conduct expected moderators to use the referent's preferred gender pronoun when referring to individuals who had expressed a gender pronoun preference. StackExchange's position is that this is a direct implication of the general "be nice" expectation. The announcement also included a plan to change the license for user generated content from CC-by-SA 3.0 to CC-by-SA 4.0. My understanding is CC-by-SA 3.0 allows relicensing under "later versions" and that CC-by-SA 4.0 is considered compatible with the Gnu Public License. To me, compatibility with GPL seems reasonable for sites with freely available code. YMMV. Shortly thereafter, StackExchange revoked a moderator's status. Other moderators across the network have also quit since. In addition, StackExchange has announced it is creating a formal process for removing moderators. -- My take is that StackExchange views a moderator code of conduct as a business necessity. One of the sites the removed moderator moderated is dedicated to religious practice. This seems a place where the wider community standard regarding gender pronouns might be likely to conflict with a moderator's profound beliefs and non-negotiable behaviors. I suspect the moderator code of conduct has been in the works for a long time and addresses long standing problems. The obvious one is moderators deliberately behaving in ways that are at odds with the types of communities StackExchange is trying to create. The less obvious problem is moderator burnout. The recent events create a context in which anyone who wants to quit the opportunity to quit on principle. It is also a way of shedding moderator behaviors that are primarily expressions of bureaucratic power. Inertia of bound identity is a side effect of active participation in online communities. Online communities natural move to a state of insiders and outsiders. From the start, Spolsky intended for StackOverflow to avoid that social dynamic. It's a major theme of the podcasts he and Atwood made while founding StackOverflow. [1] Moderators are inherently insiders. A moderator code of conduct formalizes what it means to be an insider. It defines inside and outside in terms of business function not longevity or popularity among regulars. The code of conduct addresses the tribal behaviors that evolve in online communities by reducing the ability of moderators to build tribes arbitrarily. [1]: The first StackOverflow podcast from 2008: https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2008/04/17/podcast-1/

jsmith45 7y ago
A few problems with that. This was never just a moderator code of conduct, but a change to the regular code of conduct for all users. It was just revealed to moderators early. (And with the clear statement that it applied to them immediately, even though the policy was still being written.) Also, this new policy requires the use the the pronouns whenever known if you would normally use pronouns in that circumstance. [1][2] But that is for any pronoun. This includes all the weird neo-pronouns: xe, per, ze, hu, sie, kit, thon. Do you know how to conjugate all those? Most you can probably guess and be correct, but a few can be surprising). But technically the stated policy did not stop there. So if somebody says their preferred pronoun is ghaH (The Klingon third person singular intelligent pronoun), users would need to use that. I for one, have absolutely no idea how to conjugate Klingon pronouns, so I would be hard pressed to actually use that pronoun. [1]: They were really unclear about that for a while. The fired moderator wanted to know if just generally avoiding pronouns for all users was acceptable. They finally answered that as yes, but not before they totally misunderstood what she was asking and fired her. [2]: StackExchange wanted to avoid people with non-standard pronouns getting singled out by others avoiding pronouns only for these people
- brudgers 7y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I've been following it generally. Not in detail because the meta discussions are just that meta and their structural form tends to be similar to other good-bye's I've read going back to usenet and bulletin boards and here on HN. What I have read makes it clear that good faith use of pronouns is consistent with "be nice" even if a particular pronoun is used in error. Personally, I think moderators quitting over the pronoun policy is evidence that it is the right move. The goodfaith way of addressing Klingon pronouns is honesty. Admit you don't know and ask the person. In general, being nice is more important than grammatical perfection. It's ok to misconjugate a pronoun. No body write perfect english all time.