cellio | Stack Overflow Inc. fiasco: timeline

This is a timeline, to the best of my recollection, of the events that have been brought up as relevant to the current moderator-firing mess. (Current tally: 73 moderator positions currently vacant or suspended.)

Preface: The Teachers' Lounge (TL) is a private room where the convention has been that people can let their hair down a little. Discussions of policies, how to handle specific moderation situations, and (often) outside politics and other hot topics are often vigorous. It's like when programmers discuss/argue about some technical design point extensively. Often it is programmers discussing some technical policy point extensively In both cases, the goal is to refine the final product. Shog9, a senior community manager, described this dynamic in more detail somewhere that I can't find right now. It's also a place where people sometimes talk about deeply personal things.

June 2018: There was a TL discussion about gender-neutral pronouns and then "preferred pronouns". (I know they're not "preferred", but this was the phrasing used by the people bringing it up.) Some moderators who are not native English speakers expressed confusion. I said I avoid singular they for that reason, 95% of the time you can write around the problem, and (on SE) I'm offended when someone edits my posts badly to solve a gender-neutrality problem. (Editing well is fine, which usually means pluralizing or using a name or something like that instead of either generic "he" or singular "they".) Some people said not using preferred pronouns invalidates the person; I said for me it's not about the person at all but the quality of my own writing (an important part of my identity). Tension rose, other people said some things I saw as bullying, and I stepped out. For a long time after, I didn't enter the room unless strictly necessary. Note: no employee said anything to me about my role in this conversation, and while some other mods disagreed with my position, none said anything like "this is a Code of Conduct (CoC) violation". Employees witnessed this discussion.
End of June 2018: I was the second-choice candidate for a community-manager position at Stack Overflow Inc.
August 2018: another moderator made some very bigoted attacks against nonbinary and trans people, targeting one moderator who was out as NB. The messages were completely inappropriate. Some mods called for that mod to be fired, and a community manager said you don't get to do that. There have been no public consequences for the rude moderator to this day.
January 2019: a different moderator (henceforth OP) asked a question, tagged "discussion", on the moderators' private Q&A site ("team"): should we require people to use people's preferred pronouns? (Again, the moderator, who is trans, used the term "preferred".) OP self-answered to say, somewhat vehemently, that we absolutely must require this and using wrong pronouns is misgendering. I answered saying that we already have a negative commandment, don't call people what they don't want to be called (like wrong pronouns), which is proper, but this question calls for adding a positive requirement to use specific language and we shouldn't do that. I talked about writing in a gender-neutral way, that we rarely even need third-person-singular pronouns in our discussions, and not using a pronoun at all isn't misgendering. This was the top-voted answer, something like +53/-10 last I saw it. Note: Three different community managers posted answers after I did, and none said my answer was inappropriate in any way. (One disagreed with it, which is fine.)
February: A community manager said, in an answer, "we're working on this; send email if you have concerns". I sent email, got no answer, pinged, got no answer, I think pinged again with no answer, and set it aside. The question wasn't getting new activity at this point and fell out of my view.
May: the moderator who was attacked by that other mod in August stepped down. I later learned that some people want to blame the departure on my conversation from nearly a year earlier, but that doesn't add up.
Late August or early September: The same community manager from February (who didn't answer my email) posted a team question asking what kinds of optional training moderators would like SE to provide, if there were to be some budget for such things, to help us do our jobs better. The question listed some things that were already in the works, including diversity & inclusion. I posted two well-received answers, one about data mining and one about intellectual property. OP posted an answer saying "D&I training specifically about trans, and require mods to take it". The tone of the answer was pretty combative and people downvoted for that reason (as noted in comments). OP interpreted downvotes as transphobia. There was another answer that said something like "cultural awareness / different cultures, as part of D&I" that was presented positively and got a lot of support. (I know gender != culture; I'm pointing out that another D&I answer, presented constructively, was well-received.)
Mid-September: I went on vacation for a few days. This isn't directly related, but there should be one happy thing in this saga of woe. Also, it means I didn't look at the TL transcript for about four days.
September 18: I got notifications of several voting events on that team post from January about pronouns. Usually a flurry of voting on a dormant post means it was linked somewhere, so I looked at the TL transcript, where I saw another mod refer to (and link to) my answer and call it "bigoted". (I would be happy to have this answer, along with its question for context, made public to challenge this claim, but I don't think it's legal for me to release even an answer I wrote myself.) I responded to that message saying something like "you falsely accuse me; please tell me what specifically you object to so I can clarify". The response persuaded me that the only problem was that this person disagreed with me.
Same day: An employee with a "director" title posted and pinned a message saying the company is changing the CoC to require use of preferred pronouns and avoiding them is forbidden. I asked questions, most importantly: would it now be a violation of this new policy to write in the gender-neutral way that I already use? And how are you judging "avoiding", which requires knowledge of intent? Other people had questions and issues too. One moderator pointed out a problem with something I was proposing to do and I agreed after it was explained and said I wouldn't do that. The employee did not stay to field questions, but came back a couple hours later to tell me "we've been as clear as we can and your values are out of alignment". Confused, I left. This transcript was leaked on Reddit over Rosh Hashana. It had been taken down by the time I got back online, but I was able to find a copy. On review, I don't see anything I said that would violate either the current or future CoC. No employee indicated to me any problems with my behavior.
I stayed out of TL from then on except to (1) flag something (two days later) and (2) respond to my firing (very briefly before being kicked). The discussion continued for the next two days, and on September 20 a community manager declared the topic closed, saying to send email if there's anything else you want to say. One queer moderator posted several messages objecting to this, and a CM (I can't remember if it was the same one) froze the room for the weekend. Two moderators who tried to post anyway were kicked out of chat.
I didn't read much of the transcript for the next week and don't know what was said after the room was unfrozen.
September 23: I received a reply from the CM I'd emailed back in February. It seemed to be an aggregate reply to that message and one I'd sent to the CM team on September 20 about the new policy. The email I received said some things that made me think my recent message had been misunderstood -- quite possible, as I'd written it quickly before Shabbat. I replied with questions and clarifications. The employee promised a reply "tomorrow", then got sick and said it'd be another day, then was still sick, and finally promised a reply on September 27. (The employee was definitely back to work that day and handling other matters.)
September 26: A queer moderator resigned in anger, with complaints about community managers, other moderators, and the "entrenched power structure", and vague accusations of bigotry. The notice accused employees of dealing in bad faith with queer moderators and putting them in difficult situations. The notice said a single incident prompted the resignation but did not elaborate. When I read it I assumed that incident was the shutting down of the conversation the previous week, which the resigning mod had objected to at the time, but that has not been confirmed. Edit: now confirmed.
September 27: That email response never came. Instead, I was fired because they thought I wouldn't follow the future code of conduct. I've written elsewhere about the many problems with how this went down. Moderators across the network began resigning or suspending their moderation activities. I sent (separate) email to the person who fired me, the CM I'd been having that email discussion with, and Joel Spolsky, chairman of the board and (then-)CEO. I received no replies. Sara Chipps, Director of Public Q&A, left responses on various moderators' resignation posts maligning my character. You can see an example on my Mi Yodeya post. The cut-and-pasted message included, specifically referring to me: "When a moderator violates [inclusion and respect], we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately." Both halves of that statement are false.
September 30 (Rosh Hashana): When SE knew I would be offline and unable to respond, Sara Chipps made a statement to the press saying I'd been fired for CoC violations. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first claim of a current violation.
October 3: Sara Chipps posted a non-apology "apology" in which she said I was fired "for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change that behavior". Note the escalation here: she now says current CoC, repeated, and repeated requests. I said "citation needed". This accusation was linked prominently on the front page of every site on the network. The next day, after a bunch of other answers had been posted that called her out on various issues, I added an answer of my own.

That's where things stood right before Shabbat.

Breaking news, October 6 21:00 UTC: the CTO stepped in, accepted responsibility, apologized to the community, and promised to contact me directly to apologize and discuss next steps. Finally! I look forward to that contact.

Update, October 7 19:00 UTC: No contact yet.

Update, October 8: I received email from David Fullerton today at 15:10 UTC. I am not satisfied (and this is a vast understatement). I asked for a discussion, which was rejected.

Update, October 13: David said, in his meta post and in email to me, that they planned to develop processes for removing and reinstating moderators by this past Friday (October 11) and that I could apply to go through the latter process once it existed. They did publish these processes to moderators on Friday. As of Sunday afternoon, I have received no further contact from SE about this process and how to set it in motion. I sent David email asking about it and have received no reply yet. Further updatess.

Threaded | Flat

From:

dantobias

Nicely thorough and meticulous... just what I expect from you. I've just recently reconnected with you due to finding out about this flap, 30+ years after last having any contact with you when we were college classmates; I remember you from the CMU Computer Club and an online Nomic game, among other things. I seem to recall you created a Rogue clone named "Rouge" as a class project or something; I hear "Roguelike" games are a whole genre that's still being created/used by some enthusiasts.

The opinions you expressed about using ungendered language strike me as just what I expect to find in dictionary usage notes, at least in dictionaries from before the latest round of culture wars. Some dictionary just recently announced its addition of nonbinary singular "they", with much fanfare, implying that until extremely recently they didn't recognize this usage. I dragged my dictionary off the shelf (American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, 1992; I also own a fourth edition from 2000 or so, but it's at work, so that one will have to do) to see what it said about personal pronoun usage. That's new enough to be within my (and your) adult lifetime, but old enough so some of those participating in the current online culture wars weren't born yet. (Some of these battles seem to be a generation-gap thing.)

Under "they", it has some plural definitions, as well as this one:

2. Usage Problem. Used to refer to the one previously mentioned or implied, especially as a substitute for generic he; Every person has rights under the law, but they don't always know them. See usage note at he.

Going to the entry for "he", there's this item in the definition:

2. Usage Problem. Used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown: "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence" (William Blake)

The definition is followed by an entire column's worth of usage notes. It's noted that "he" is the traditional usage for indefinite or unknown gender, but that this is being increasingly objected to as unfair to women. It also notes that "they" for such usages is common but also regarded as colloquial or informal, and some think of it as ungrammatical due to the mismatch of number. It says, "As a substitute for coordinate forms such as his/her or her and his, third person plural forms such as their, have a good deal to recommend them; they are admirably brief and entirely colloquial and may be the only sensible choice in informal style... But in formal style, this option... may be misconstrued as being careless or ignorant rather than attuned to the various grammatical and political nuances...", going on to say "Writers who are concerned about avoiding both grammatical and social problems are best advised to use coordinate forms such as his or her... Some writers see no need to use a personal pronoun implying gender unless absolutely necessary[.]"

It's noted that 37 percent of their usage panel favored "his" in such constructions, 46 percent used coordinate forms such as "his/her", and only 3 percent favored forms of "they". (A few other options were favored by a minority.)

The notes ended with "The entire question is unlikely to be resolved in the near future."

Edited Date: 2019-10-06 06:29 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)

You weren't booted for violating "The Rules" per se, which are just a smokescreen for the exercise of power. You were known by the clique not to be one of them, and your actions demonstrated that you might not be completely obedient to them in the future. So they fired you. Simple as.

None of these people care about rules lawyering, which makes you look weak and clueless. The rules are whatever results in the preferred outcome of the ruling clique, nothing more or less.

From: (Anonymous)

So much for inclusiveness and diversity. I find what they did to you disgusting.

From: (Anonymous)

Like many, I've been following this saga closely. It has ramifications not just for Stack Exchange, but for other Q &A and forum sites as well in regards to how cultural issues should be addressed and responded to. In this case, it's clear this was handled very poorly in more ways than one.

Given the enormous outpouring of support and backlash, I'd like to suggest that you take it a step further and hire an attorney who specializes in labor or civil law. That might seem extreme, but I think it could help to serve as a landmark case that could set precedence for others to come, and in any case would help to establish facts that otherwise will surely remain locked behind closed doors.

I think labor law applies here because although you weren't technically being "paid", you were conducting work for the organization and representing it as evident by your moderator agreement, which establishes terms for that representation which you were obligated to abide by, and which gave them the authority to terminate that representation. You were also accruing "reputation points" which can be used like currency on the site, such as adding bounties, downvoting, etc… and how different is that from virtual currency like Bitcoin, or even stock which allows one to vote in corporate shareholder meetings.

Clearly the actions taken by the organization not only impacted your reputation on the site, but publicly since they gave quotes to the press about your alleged behavior. This unwelcome notoriety could impact your ability to earn a living if employees came to view you as a "troublemaker" or someone who was unwilling to accept policy decisions, thus impacting your ability to earn a living.

It's also evident that this organization seems poised to assert their power over its users, which have similarly invested a good chunk of their lives into, and their cumulative work is paying for the operating costs, salaries, and future profits for the organization's investors.

So although it would seem not to be a legal dispute, it very much does involve labor, earnings, and profit. If a corporation is focused on paying dividends, the most effective way to impact their policy is to demonstrate legally that they're jeopardizing this through poor management decisions and policy mishandling.

If you explained to the community why were you pursuing this course of action, I strongly believe they'll continue to back you. They have become aware that this is not just about inclusivity, but about the bottom line. And you don't have to seek a monetary judgement if you don't want to (or you could donate it to a worthy cause).

Note that I'm not lawyer, just a fellow user who "reviewed" the situation and found it very unsatisfactory and unfair. It appears to me that you seem very capable of standing up not just for yourself, but for others too. I believe taking this to the next level will not only help the community at large, but minorities who likely feel they'll be targeted now as part of that backlash.

That is of course easier to suggest than to do :-) Regardless, I wish you the very best, and hope that in the future you'll be able to look back and say, "Wow, that was totally nuts, but I'm glad I went through it, wasn't defeated, and came out stronger in end." IMHO, you can already hold your head high, and it's just a decision as to whether you see this as an opportunity for a cause worth fighting for, or something you need to move on from for your own well-being. Either would be very understandable. Best of luck!

From: (Anonymous)

In follow-up to my earlier suggestion of hiring an attorney, in most cases just the threat of legal action causes parties to seriously reevaluate their positions, which in this case they seem to have boxed themselves into by publicly stating they would not change.

It could very well be by the way that Sarah is asserting her own power here, since she previously wrote a blog indicating that she did not like others questioning her ability to manage. In fact, her actions very much seem to be in response to a challenge to that.

So you might actually be doing the other employees there a favor, who could be afraid to speak up against her. They're an inexperienced company as a whole and are likely very afraid of litigation, including from their own staff. I believe this is why the CEO has been completely absent - he walked right into a minefield and is likely letting Sarah take the reins and consequential fallout, instead of stepping in to try to repair the rift with the community so it doesn't escalate further, as he should.

In terms of how to fund it, I'd suggest having someone start a GoFundMe or similar campaign. Just the attention from that alone might serve as enough pressure to get Stack Exchange to bend and become more flexible. It would be very easy for them to just say, "We heard you, we saw the errors in our ways, and we're going to try to work things out for the community's sake."

From: (Anonymous)

Wow, this is horrible news, and I'm very sorry to hear this, Monica. It paints SE in a very poor light. Being singled out and publicly destroyed for allegedly violating some rule, particularly a new one, is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It's called "making an example of someone," and thugs and dictators have been doing it for thousands of years to instill fear in people and keep them compliant and subservient.

And the usual suspects are blaming the whole thing on homophobia and transphobia, because of course they are. But the term is wholly inappropriate in this case. A phobia is an irrational fear, but when the message comes down from on high, in such an official and heavy-handed way, that anyone even suspected of maybe at some future point doing something to cross the trans and/or homosexual people will be made an example of in this way, there's nothing the least bit irrational about the fear that that causes. It's a chilling effect, specifically intended to bring about exactly that sort of very rational fear and self-censorship.

SE is an American company, and they need to remember what it means to be American. Compelled speech is something our society considers to be at the lowest, filthiest level of unacceptable behavior. Inclusion is well and good, but thuggery, even in the name of a laudable goal, is still thuggery and should be condemned by any reasonable person. And it's good to see that it is being so condemned; the company's posts on this topic are getting downvoted in record quantities.

Keep telling the truth, Monica. For whatever it's worth, we've got your back, and we won't let this drop until things improve.

-- Anonymous, because I speak for all of us

From: (Anonymous)

This is a good summary. And I think using gender-neutral, but grammatical language is a good idea. It also helps non-native English speakers, like myself, understand.

A theory--you're being picked on because of your involvement on Mi Yodea. There are a lot of virulent anti-Semites in various activist communities, and I find I've had very non-controversial posts on SE voted down en masse when the post indicated that I worked for an Israeli company, or that I was a Hebrew speaker. Obviously, assume good faith, but when you're being attacked for very shaky reasons, this is a real possibility.

Shanah Tovah

From:

hudebnik

Yuck. Hoping that the Oct. 6 update leads to concrete positive outcomes.

From: (Anonymous)

Im so angry at the way you have been treated here (as I think most of the community are). Is there anything you think we can do beyond registering our discontent with SE to help fix the root cause of this problem? (which I think seems to be ignoring the communities representatives to push a specific social agenda).

I'm all for treating everyone with respect, I think we all have a responsibility to be respectful, but this seems to be actively undermined.

- Luke McGregor

From: (Anonymous)

I haven't browsed on the desktop version of SE lately (just the mobile app), so I only just found out about this. I'm sorry to hear about this. And I'm not sure if it's just me, but I just found this insincere when I read it.

We learned (or were painfully reminded, rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday.

This is not what I wanted to come back to, and I'm glad at least that at least a lot of the community is also upset about it.

From:

richardf8

This is a thing. I could get very political very fast, but the rate I have seen allies being thrown under the bus for trivia is alarming.

צום קל וגמר חתימה טובה

From: (Anonymous)

I know you want a constructive conversation with stackexchange, but after all that has been said and done by them, *maybe*, just maybe, you should consider that further secrecy (meaning: talks in private) will favour them and allow them to exploit your position even more.

With that, I mean that *maybe* you might want to limit any further communication with stackexchange to public communication, or put a condition on any conversation you have with them allowing you to publish the exchange verbatim. If what you wrote is even close to the truth (and all indications say it is) then you have nothing to lose, and everything to win, while stackexchange can only lose (if they talk) or lose (if they refuse to talk publicly). When talks happen in private, it only helps stackexchange's game of he said she said. This is true especially for phone calls.

Of course, only you know the exact circumstances you are in, and you have to think of yourself and what is best for yourself, so I am writing this merely as something you should consider, but not necessarily do - good luck to you!

From: (Anonymous)

Oh my God, this feels almost as bad as when Dumbledore was removed from Hogwarts by Mrs Umbridge!

From: (Anonymous)

Update: SE tries to take the new rules public. ( https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/334900/134001 ) Their announcement is currently in the process of being downvoted to oblivion, like the rest of their abuse has been. Almost all the replies are people pointing out how problematic this is from several different angles. Probably the best is the one that stands up to them and tells them point-blank, "it's *your* values that are out of alignment with the values of the community." ( https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334990/134001 )

From: (Anonymous)

Monica,

You do not know me, I am merely one of the many whom, in passing, have seen the events on StackExchange unfold and seen the turmoil that has been needlessly directed your way. I wanted to express my deepest admiration for your restraint, your candor, and strength during what must undoubtedly be a very stressful and enduring time. There is no doubt in my mind that these events have had dealt some physical toll on you, for that I feel disgusted by the actions of those in charge at StackExchange.

During these events, like many others, I have gotten a chance to read your activity on the various outlets of StackExchange in which you were involved, as well as your writings on Medium. I found an individual who was erudite, compassionate, and caring in their actions and speech. Nothing like the bigoted, insensitive monster that individuals like Yvette have sought to paint you as.

I also realize you have some concerns about many malicious actors who have used your situation to further their own agendas of malice, hate and contempt for views that they do not hold themselves. While I cannot speak on some authority of the quantity of actors that did exist who fit that criteria. I can speak and say that you are well supported by many of those within the StackExchange community who care about the community and the people within it, myself included. Many of us see the actions taken against you as another strike to the heart of the community that we all love, not because of the actual action itself taken, but the total disregard of the community as a whole. This whole thing has been a very "This is happening and YOU WILL LIKE IT" sort of affair, this saddens me, like many others.

I just wanted to express my support and admiration for you in these times. I am not Jewish, and am not very familiar with the Jewish faith, but I understand Yom Kippur is around the corner for you and based on a brief search, I believe a proper greeting is 'Chag Sameach', I think this is a safe term no? Either way, I wish to express my utmost wishes that you have a restful and happy holiday and do know, when you return, there will be plenty of people who still respect you and support you, regardless of whatever happens between you and StackExchange.

- MH

From: (Anonymous)

Monica,

I may come across as incoherent or inappropriate in part, because I am:

* from a country which is not culturally congruent
* neurodiverse
* unconnected with StackExchange

First of all, are you doing Ok?
I am struck by the weird/unfairness of the situation you find yourself in, and for no obvious reason, sympathetic.
I hope your holiday break has allowed you to connect with some sources of strength and equanimity. Something tells me you have these.
I admire your self-control, as I would expect you to be angry or hurt. If you do, make sure these feelings get listened to somewhere.

Second, most parties speaking on the SE matter seem to be orbiting a vacant point in social space and this intrigues me. I will disregard the matters of contention, because I perceive something more interesting going on. The substrate to the grievances (of both ‘sides’) appears to be failing assumptions about the nature of the working relationship. Can I suggest that the role of volunteer moderator is insufficiently defined in the relational dimension?
The social contract you imagined you signed up to is being forgotten or repudiated, possibly ‘because they can’.

SE corporate and the mods each seem to believe the other party needs them more than they need the other party. This is evident from rhetoric and actions. SE corporate seem to be performing a capitalist-autocratic script, with only tokenistic inclusion of visitor and moderator concerns. If they cannot be induced to relate outside that bubble, the relationship isn’t just damaged, it doesn’t exist.

I observe in both David and Sarah’s communication a disconnect between _discussion_ of issues and the (absence of) acknowledgment of the emotions and individuals affected by the issues, i.e. full empathy. Can’t or won’t - doesn’t matter. Resolution in any meaningful sense will not be possible - this is basic emotional intelligence that’s missing.

Finally, AFAICT you are a talented person with broad interests, and many opportunities ahead of you. Respect your potential and choose your own path - you will find a meaningful life again.

I’m trying to be optimistic with these thoughts, but I apologise if I have brought any sadness.

Peace,
Ian

From: (Anonymous)

I'm Lorenzo Donati, active high-rep (top 100) user on EE.SE. I just read what happened to you and find it disgusting at least. I don't remember if we ever participated in any discussion on one of the StackExchange sites I usually follow. However I do remember well your name and some of your contributions, possibly on meta.SE. I always considered you a positive, welcoming and insightful person. Not to mention your dedication to helping others with your contributions on SE network. I stumbled on your blog by following a link in one of the post on meta.SE and I felt compelled to leave you this small token of appreciation and sympathy in this awful situation.
Be Happy!
Lorenzo

From: (Anonymous)

Keep the faith.
DO NOT APOLOGIZE. I assume the email said to admit you violated the CoC (were a bigot) and everything will be fine. Don't. See
http://www.the-niceguy.com/contributors/SurvivalGuide.html
It says keep records - I'm glad that you are DEMANDING they be specific about how you violated whichever CoC.

This is like the Star Trek Next Generation "Chain of Command" where Picard is tortured and Picard is told to say there are five lights but there are only four.

One can be civil, kind, even caring, but reject being forced to say something they know is not true (or even believe is untrue).

I won't see if this is approved because I use various security blockers but I hope this helps.

SE now has a "right to self identify" but no right to due process or free speech. I hope you can be a part of restoring things.

From:

masked3192

Hello Monica,
It is really unfortunate that you are caught in this mess. It is fairly obvious to everyone outside a certain ivory tower that the recent CoC or whatever is a box-ticking activity towards a certain company goal. As you rightly said elsewhere, you have been made a scapegoat to make an obscure statement about the CoC's teeth. They would have done well to choose a different scapegoat though, but I guess having already banned me last year, they didn't have any obvious choice. :-)

That said though, the current fiasco is an XY Problem. The actual issue here is many long-term members of the "community" trust the company when they are unworthy of that trust. That mismatch of expectation and reality is the root cause of the current fiasco, as well as the previous ones. The Welcome Wagon of previous year was a blatantly obvious foot-in-the-door scam, which opened the door to make "small concessions" for "new" (=$$$) users at the expense of the established users.

The current fiasco is a natural progression towards the same goal of driving out established users who don't bring in much new revenue to make room for those who do. It was for exactly this reason that I mocked the initiative as The Great Black Magical Hand of the Welcoming Bandwagon. I could see plenty of red flags to anticipate it would end up into something like the current fiasco. I tried forcing their hand with a disguised "constructive" feedback here (https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/314598/202356), but that ended up exactly as everyone expected and for obvious reasons.

I saw through the company's deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy long ago. They kept peddling changes that served their agenda while taking the moral high ground and claiming that they were doing it for the community. I kept calling them out and telling people not to trust them, but nobody believed me. (Cassandra Truth) Unfortunately, even in the midst of the current fiasco, many people still believe that the company is trustworthy.

My objections were shot down as non-constructive. Here's a fun fact: in real life, I am known to be a great communicator, and I have resolved conflicts that people several years my senior believed couldn't be resolved. So, I wasn't incapable of giving constructive feedback *per se*. I just did not bother because (1) with their deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy, the company had long since crossed the point where they deserved constructive feedback and (2) it wouldn't make any difference either way because they didn't want to hear criticism of their decisions (constructive or otherwise).

You have also mentioned elsewhere that you were perhaps too "naive" to follow Spolsky's lead and sign up with your real name. I remember we had a bit of a debate on this topic (in Catbert's Lounge, or perhaps in meta comments, don't remember). I must say, I would have felt happy if I had been proven wrong on that point, and the fact that the company ended up proving me right leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

My real life identity is not exactly a secret, but it would take quite some effort for a casual site visitor to figure it out, which is enough of a deterrent. Ironically, if I were the currently chosen scapegoat, the company couldn't release my real life identity to the press without a massive egg on their face. ("One of our moderators, Masked Man (whose real name is ...) refused to address people by their preferred pronouns." would raise questions about their intentions and overshadow the pronoun non-issue.)

I see that you are still hoping the company will talk to you and sort things out. With utmost respect and no malice, I beg to submit that you *are* (no "perhaps" here) "naive". The company clearly has no interest in resolving the issue or making good the damage done to you. I can say this "somewhat" objectively as I have been away from the site for about a year, and sat out of the all the previous drama. (I only just visited it recently due to the news of the company appointing an Indian-origin CEO, which (coincidentally?) happened around the same time as the fiasco.) Your best option, in my opinion, is to cut your losses and move on. I fully understand this isn't easy for you.

I have previously crossed swords with you on a number of occasions, but looking back, I realize it came down to a simple difference of perspective. I had long ago given up on trusting the company while you believed (and still do!) the company was acting in good faith.

Feel free to contact me over email if I can be of help. Yes, I know that looks like a long shot, but I'm actually much less of a jerkass in private than I am online.

Thanks for taking the time to read my long rambling post. I wish you good luck in whatever you choose to do hereafter (and I don't restrict this to the current fiasco). I guess as they say in the USA, "May the force be with you."

From: (Anonymous)

I think the behavior by Stack Exchange is absolutely unacceptable. As they don't seem to respond properly and many users leave, I think it might be possible to set up a truly community-run, open source platform that aims to be better than Stack Exchange.

If you are interested in this or have some ideas that might be important for this, join my discord channel:

https://discord.gg/WZ7aTst

From:

wadcheber

I don't know if you remember me from Se... I was a pain in the tuckus but you were always fair, decent, kind, helpful, and incredibly competent. All my love and support is yours. You are an exemplary mod and human being. Also Shog is Satan and I blame him.

From: (Anonymous)

If S.O. were telling people what NOT to say that's fine.
However, by forcing someone to use "They", S.O. are telling people what to say. That's wrong.

Threaded | Flat

Expand Cut Tags