Stack Overflow Inc.: more delays

[cellio]

Continuing from my previous post, the company published policies for moderator removal and reinstatement on Friday to all moderators. I understood this to be an announcement, so when I hadn't heard from David Fullerton with an update by Sunday, I sent email asking about it.

It turns out that what they posted was a draft, and they are making updates based on feedback. I'm glad to hear they're listening to feedback, but this introduces another delay. David said they are finalizing the policies "this week" and will send me the final version when it's done.

Reminder: the company has absolutely refused to reinstate me now, even though they admit that they failed to follow the process they already had for moderator removal. Even though David admits that I deserved the benefit of a private, comprehensive process, and even though a senior employee, Sara Chipps, subsequently maligned me repeatedly and very publicly (which is causing damage), they are unwilling to revert the change and then look at the original situation afresh. I have to instead apply for reinstatement.

From what I've heard through the rumor mill, the process, once started, takes two weeks and is probably biased toward the status quo.

With that as background, here is the email I sent to David tonight in reply to that message:

Thank you for the update.

Can we expedite any of this? Sara's public, defamatory accusations, made in violation of all prior Stack Exchange rules and conventions about privacy, are actively causing me harm every single day. They also resulted from a lack of due process for me. Reinstating me alone will not fix that, but it seems reinstatement is a precondition before SE will mitigate the harm done by these actions. From what you've said and the rumors I've heard about the timing in the policy, we're looking at another three weeks of delay and thus continuing damage.

I don't think you intend to cause serious ongoing harm to me. What can we do to alleviate it?

---

While I'm posting... a couple people have asked me questions privately, so:

• I was not warned either that I was violating the CoC or that I was facing possible removal.

• If SE is considering the messages in TL from Sara on September 18 to be warnings, then I did not subsequently violate the CoC, current or future. (I also did not interpret them as warnings that my status was in danger.)

• There was one piece of email from a CM that suggested that if I couldn't see a path toward resolving the matter, I should step down. But I did see a path and said so. So (1) that wasn't a warning of impending termination and (2) even if it had been, the condition was not met.

• I didn't go disrupt something elsewhere on the network after leaving TL. I didn't do anything that would call for an urgent response.

• I think it is likely that the reinstatement process will be rigged against me. Nonetheless, I will go through it if that path is made available in the reasonably near future.

Edit 2019-10-22: The next email I received was on October 21, when a community manager emailed me to let me know the new processes were about to be posted.

Comments

Speechless

[(Anonymous)]

I am, quite literally, speechless. The sound of silence is deafening. I could not put it better than this:

"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops, fell
And echoed in the wells of silence.

Keep strong.

Silvio

Torquemada Lounge

[(Anonymous)]

I've been watching, especially as David's post went from I think over 500 to now under 200 and dropping fast.

I'm not active on SO/SE but the TL didn't seem to me like it was a "star chamber" where you were on trial without knowing it, much less the charges against you, and tried, found guilty and executed IN PRIVATE, where there are all kinds of "we can't expose private information" excuses.

Meanwhile Sara libeled you in public via the Register. Instead of "We have removed a moderator and can't comment further", it was "We removed you know who for multiple violations of our Code of Conduct".

While I can understand some emergency removal for criminal activity or doxxing, there is NOTHING I can believe you did that shouldn't have been handled via the EXISTING RULES for removing a Moderator if needed. I assume there would be due process and a public record.

Justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but it is an accumulating injustice.

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Your opposition is getting record downvotes and the responses as many upvotes.

And it is sad. A community is NOT BUILT ON RULES BUT IS BUILT ON TRUST. A major SO moderator resigned today.

Re: Torquemada Lounge

[cellio]

Agreed. Their actions are damaging not only me and a bunch of other moderators, but the *communities* they're supposed to be supporting. They don't even seem to care about doing damage to Stack Overflow, the flagship; the rest of us are just noise. I was stunned when George resigned on SO today, as he'd long seemed to be a company supporter.

The thing about TL is that, until now, vigorous policy discussions and hypotheticals and pedantic examination of proposals was *normal* and *welcome*. Better to have a bunch of engaged pedants beat on it and help refine it before you implement it, right? Sometimes those conversations were vigorous, and sometimes they crossed lines that made me uncomfortable enough to leave, and I do think that needs to be fixed. But with the exception of a few rude comments from just a couple people, the conversation on September 18 didn't cross those lines. It was a vigorous but mostly *respectful* policy discussion.

Except that Sara Chipps didn't want to be part of that, apparently. She wanted to make pronouncements but disengage from the rest, and then brought her wrath down on me. And then she libelled me, more than once. Disgusting.

The score on David's "apology" post was close to 600 at one point; now it's below 200 and continuing to drop, as time passes without visible progress. Sadly, I don't think anybody at company HQ cares how things are received on meta any more. As with TL, pushback, questioning, and disagreement are interpreted as problem users, not problem content.

Re: Torquemada Lounge

[(Anonymous)]

In any organizatio there needs to be a place to speak freely ("permission to speak freely, captain"). It sounds like the TL was supposed to be that place, and that except for something way over the top, everyone could have an honest, if rough discussion. Some places the lines have to be much farther out to not squelch honest disagreement.

If Sara libeled you in TL it would be bad enough. I only know about her public libeling and doubling down.

How much is it going to cost SE to hire even some foreign outsourcing company to keep things from being a sewer if they lose the key moderators, and even then, having someone kind, understanding, who will correct and build community is very different than a delete-bot, AI or human.

I think it is terrible but it is like SE is about to die, but would rather deny the situation rather than admit error. This is not Sara, but the entire SE corporation. Is there no one there that realizes the community is the product, not just the static answers and the system, and that the Moderators are the most important part - many will ask, many will answer, but few will keep things organized and clean - especially without pay.

Temprament

[(Anonymous)]

You are are rare person being able to keep a level head.

While I don't want to get personal, Sara went public earlier with her own misunderstanding:

https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/07/18/building-community-inclusivity-stack-overflow/

A quick synopsis is she introduced a change, there were lots of objections, she too them all PERSONALLY, and stewed all weekend. Then she read them trying to find the insults and throwing shade, and found ... oh, it was rational disagreement and reasonable suggestions that disagreed with the policy!

I don't know who removed you from moderation, but the non-Apology and the explanation not relitigate post seems to show Sara does NOT have the temprament to interact with the community in this way. I don't think SE should take action beyond that, but if she is emotionally too quick on the trigger and will wield a ban hammer she should be relegated to somewhere else where she can be productive without causing problems.

We are all different - as we were created as stones, not bricks. I know someone who is excellent when he writes but now has a "podcast" but every comment seems to distract him saying they need to be banned, or redirects the subject, or something else. He doesn't have the temprament to do intereractive live podcasts. He should stick to writing.

There are many things I avoid because I know I won't do them well even if I'm technically not merely capable but would excel - if I had the temperament.

Re: Temprament

[cellio]

I agree. It appears Sara did not take the lesson to heart, even after writing that blog post about it. And it seems very likely that Sara was at the center of my getting removed as a moderator, though others were involved too. Or at least one other; David said he approved it.

I have the temperament for written communication and for moderation. Among the moderators I'm pretty widely regarded as being fair and respectful. I've suspended users and had them thank me for explaining the problem, and then seen them improve when they came back.

I've concluded that I don't have the temperament for high-velocity chat like occurs in Teachers' Lounge. I did when we were all among friends, but there are enough moderators now that we can't know everybody, some of them wield their agendas like sledgehammers, and because of the former you don't know who'll do the latter. I miss the days when we had thoughtful, respectful conversations among people from all over the world and from all sorts of different perspectives. But that's in the past, so if I get reinstated I still don't plan to go back to that room -- or at least not until I hear that there've been major changes.

I regret that I didn't have the strength of will to stay out of that room that day. I entered because another moderator called something I wrote "bigoted", which it isn't at all, and I sought dialogue. Turns out that's one of the sledgehammer-wielders, who I now know to ignore. Oh well. (I'm not ashamed of anything I said that day, just frustrated that I was there and thus available to be attacked.)

Re: Temprament

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes you have to fight on unfamiliar battlefields not of your choice. You did good!

Temprament goes deeper, and is a problem. First is the "welcoming" problem, but also when you call a transgender by the opposite pronoun. If they are very sensitive about it, they will be hurt.

The Journalist Tim Pool describes the problem as playing Guitar. At first your fingers will bleed but you will develop callouses. I don't think it is possible to mix thin and thick skins. I remember the embarassemnt when I started coding and made newbie mistakes (more expensive since some were hollerith cards that needed to be repunched). But the same thing with LGBTQ+.

There are many who are defending you and are upset from the lavender community that are proud - in the sense that they don't need anyone elses affirmation or acceptance - of their identity or status.

I know of no better testimony in your favor or compliment you could get. That you can completely disagree with some fundamental value, but recognize as a person someone is made of gold.

[juan_gandhi]

I kind of follow the advices of Len Tillem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Tillem - his idea is just to calculate what you gain and what you lose and act accordingly.

But of course, on the other hand, it would be so heart-warming if you win. We all here wish you a victory.

[cellio]

Thanks.

I have to defend myself against the defamation. That's causing real harm to me. :-(

Now Blender

[(Anonymous)]

https://blender.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2670/the-moderators-of-blender-stack-exchange-are-on-strike

The only thing I disagree about is "Even if you agree that Monica violated the CoC"... How can you even have an opinion without any evidence either way!

Re: Now Blender

[cellio]

Oh my. Thank you; I had not seen that yet.

I've heard that some moderators do think I violated the CoC, though from what I gather, they think I did so *more than a year ago*. Whether sudden, unwarned firing is an appropriate response to something that old is an open question; if so, several other people should have been fired too. And I don't have access to the transcripts to review for myself, so we're taking their word for it and, well, some people's words aren't worth very much. So there's that.

[alienor]

If SE is considering the messages in TL from Sara on September 18 to be warnings, then I did not subsequently violate the CoC, current or future. (I also did not interpret them as warnings that my status was in danger.)

There was one piece of email from a CM that suggested that if I couldn't see a path toward resolving the matter, I should step down. But I did see a path and said so. So (1) that wasn't a warning of impending termination and (2) even if it had been, the condition was not met.

If your suggested path forward was to avoid the use of pronouns, and SE had already declined that suggestion, then I can understand why they removed your moderator status for refusal to follow the CoC (while the new CoC makes the pronoun thing explicit, misgendering/degendering is still disrespectful/rude and in violation of the old CoC). It's not that you violated the CoC, but that you told them you would violate the CoC.

I don't agree with the public statements they've made against you. I'm sorry you've had to experience that. It's not fair and really awful of them.

[cellio]

I had several questions outstanding. The answers to those questions would have helped us understand whether a resolution was possible. When I asked the questions I certainly saw a path forward, pending the answers to those questions, and thus didn't think stepping down was called for yet.

Thanks for the support. They've been really awful and do not seem to care about the human cost of their attacks. The SE I once knew, the one that cared at least a little about its communities and the people who build them, is gone.

Kafka Trap Ahead?

[(Anonymous)]

I expect the path for reinstatement will be like the old prosecutor question:

Yes, or no, have you stopped beating your wife?

It may be blatant, but may be subtle, "I promise to stop violating...", "I will never again violate...", etc. which will require a subtle confession and admission of guilt, reinforcing the defamation.

I can imagine something like the following:

SE: Here, just agree that you will stop and we will reinstate you.
M: Stop what? You haven't told anyone includng me SPECIFICALLY what I did to violate the CoC.
SE: It was all in the TL so we can't make it public.
M: Fine, send me a highlighted or annotated transcript showing where I violated the CoC.
SE: Why can't you just agree to our kind offer of reinstatement so everyone can move on?

Any kind of apology will be seen as an admission of guilt.

You have to decide, but if I were you: Don't give them any quarter because they will spin it as "Monica admits guilt!". Demand they retract their libel or prove it. Or reinstate you and use their own stated procedure for removal if they still want you gone.

Maybe some people had their feeling hurt, but we are not telepaths nor empaths, especially over the internet. The reason they like CoCs to be ambiguous even only in the enforcment is because it shifts the proof from "You said X which is hurtful" to "They said they felt hurt when you said X". And anyone can be "they" and claim anything is hurtful. Even worse when someone is acting as a white knight on behalf of a "they" which they assume is being hurt without any actual person saying so.

Re: Kafka Trap Ahead?

[cellio]

The fact that they refuse to roll back to the last good state before their process screw-ups and then proceed from there suggests that this is exactly what they're doing. They want to cast this as "Monica was guilty, and (either) we sustained it on review (or) she got better". If they wanted an honest and fair process, they would reinstate me now and then, if they feel it's warranted, go through the removal process -- which would start with specific warnings, so we could avert a worse outcome at that point.

A representative of the company libeled me, and they need to sustain that lie to defend themselves from the predictable consequences of that act. They haven't even asked me if there's room for a settlement there instead. (There is, but they have to be willing to act in good faith too.)

I won't apologize or admit guilt for things I did not do. If that means they refuse to reinstate me, then that strengthens my case against them.

(Also, Sara Chipps is in gross violation of the code of conduct, specifically the parts about bullying and (dis)respectfulness. Just sayin'.)

[minoanmiss]

I continue to be horrified that they're putting you through this and furious that anyone is libelling one of the best people I know. I am so sorry.

I think... is it possible to divide how SE furiously mishandled a disagreement from the subject of the disagreement? There have been things people said to you about transgender people that I would challenge were it really not the time and place. I really think Sara and the others involved in your firing who claim they did to make people safer have not done so in any way shape or form (quite the opposite) but I also wouldn't want to see people punish the vulnerable for it. I think SE abused your longstanding record of goodwill and disbelieved your statements that you would not harm people, and I think we can at least partially divide that discussion from the one about pronouns and respect which SE so mishandled but which does actually have a point even though SE failed to support that point in a meaningful way and chose instead to railroad you and thus make no one safe.

[cellio]

I'm very sad that they charged full steam ahead on the CoC update in the midst of the mess they made, precisely *because* it's damaging the people they said they were trying to support. Members of the queer community have *told* them "you made things worse for us", but there's been no response. It's appalling.

People are also trying to separate the issues, but seem to be largely failing. It's all bound up together in the public mind because of how SE botched the announcement on top of their botched treatment of me.

There's also been a lot of twisting and misrepresentation on both sides. Some want a policy of "you must use these specific pronouns, and you must inject gender into everything even where it doesn't belong or you're a bigot". (That's pretty close to Sara Chipps's original position, though those aren't her words.) That's clearly unworkable. On the other hand, some are saying crap like "those pronouns are fake" and "well then I get to make up my own words too", which makes it worse. And yes, we've seen the "attack helicopter" thing several times already.

In the midst of all this, anybody trying to express a nuanced position that *happens* to look similar to things that some bigots do gets accused of dog-whistling and bigotry and gets shut down. The logical fallacy of "bigots do X; you did X; therefore you are a bigot" is in play. This was apparently in play in Teachers' Lounge back in mid-September, but I didn't yet recognize it. (I'm not up on all the current dog-whistles...)

Professional writers are trained to avoid unnecessary gender references, which can be unclear and/or give offense. Apparently the UN even has guidelines on this, which I was quite surprised to learn. (Section 3. Some of the earlier stuff is dated, but that part is solid and, in my experience, current professional practice.) This doesn't mean anybody's being disrespectful; quite the opposite. In addition, we almost never *need* third-person singular pronouns on the parts of Stack Exchange I use; we talk about spam flags or unclear questions or users (as a class) or site features or whatever, or we might link to a specific post or refer to a user by name, but we don't generally talk about individual people. We might talk *with* individual people, but that's second-person which in English is ungendered, so that's fine.

So against that backdrop -- rare if any need, and an existing, respectful writing style -- I asked questions, seeking to continue to do what I do. One person pointed out that if I use "he" and "she" but not singular "they" then I'm discriminating against nonbinary folks now that some of them use that pronoun. That's a position I hadn't considered before, and I agreed that would be bad and I wouldn't do that. Some folks claimed that I was "twisting" my writing style to avoid recognizing people, which isn't at all true. (I guess we've got some amount of "*I'm* not a good enough writer to do that and therefore nobody could be"? I practice my craft; I am in fact good enough to do that.)

Now they've rushed out sloppy CoC updates, calling down the maelstrom they should have expected, and all the arguments -- extreme and nuanced, sincere and trolling -- are flying around. When people are upset they aren't in the headspace to consider nuanced positions, so it just means a lot of shouting. SE, for their part, has lobbed this into the community, left conflicting comments all over the place (good luck putting it all together), and otherwise done nothing to calm things down. It's hurting everybody, and it's hurting the queer community worst of all because their *identity* is being dragged through all the mess. Ugh.

I want to, separately, post here about language/writing -- some of the stuff I said in this comment, but more clear and careful and with more context and stuff. But I don't want to be part of making things worse for people I care about, and I fear that anything I say will be twisted and weaponized. So I probably shouldn't even leave this comment, but I don't want to ignore you either.


Sigh. This is not what inclusion means. This is not what diversity means. And it's sure not what respect means.

Please be careful Monica

[(Anonymous)]

Monica,

Thank you for continuing to keep all of us updated on what's happening (since SE obviously isn't). I have a lot of respect for you and think you're a wonderful person whose helped a lot of people and who is doing her best to make SE a better place.

It's for that reason I wanted to leave you a quick message because I'm a little worried about you. I hope it turns out that I'm 100% wrong and that a few months from now you can look back at this and call me silly for writing what I'm about to write.

However, in light of SE's recent actions, they have shown (as I'm sure you have realized) that there are quite a few senior staff members who don't truly care about the community and therefore don't care whether or not they hurt them. SE is #1 and that's all that matters. Unfortunately, that also means normal users can and will be sacrificed if they believe it will help the company achieve its goals (although publicly who knows what they are these days?).

So it is for that reason that I just wanted to leave you a quick note of caution to be very careful about what you do about moving forward with any "official" reinstatement processes or similar things. Why? Because SE has a lot of smart people working there, some who don't care much about you, and they also have the money to afford really, really good lawyers (who definitely don't care about you). So I totally hope I'm wrong here, but if they decide getting rid of you is the best thing for them to do, then you need to realize there is a possibility they could very well try setting a trap for you and you being the kind person you are (thinking others will do good by you because you do good by them) means that you may unintentionally and somewhat naively walk straight into their trap(s) with no way out. While it appears they might be extending you a welcoming hand by allowing you to go through the reinstatement process, it may also be a trojan horse in disguise, put into action by very smart lawyers who lack any empathy or compassion for you. People like Shog, Tim, etc. are awesome and say nice things, but at the end of the day you need to remember that unfortunately they're not the ones in power. The people in power can do the complete opposite of whatever someone like Shog says and then have the power to tell Shog to quit talking about it as well. The people in power aren't your friend and they sure ain't anywhere near as friendly or caring as the CM's.

Therefore, if you haven't already, I'd highly advise you to please get legal advice about all of this. You don't have to say whether you have already or not, that's fine. But if you haven't, I hope you do. Before you sign any agreement, go through any reinstatement process, agree to anything, etc., I hope you're running it all by a lawyer, just to make sure that it's all being done in a way that can't potentially screw you over afterwards.

For example, you mentioned above that if they refuse to reinstate you, that it just strengthens your case. Perhaps you might be right. Although, I'd like to offer an alternative view to this. You see, right now you have all the leverage, because they fired you without cause and in violation of their own policies. You have all the public support (well, a lot of it) because of this. Except if you now go through their reinstatement process and they rig it (on purpose) against you, then you might just find any leverage you have disappears and goes straight to them. Why? Because now you went through their official process and were found to be lacking the qualities required in a moderator. SE is now justified in having removed you previously and they can now tell that to the world. They don't have to say you're a bad person. They only need to say that after a proper, official review process (which was always rigged against you but good luck proving that in court) that you didn't meet their required standards and so won't be reinstated. Others can then infer from that what they will. Which means in the court of public opinion, for those who don't know any better, they may automatically assume that means you must have been guilty all along and so the tide might/could/will? turn against you. And what are you going to do about that? Do you have the time, the resources, the social connections, etc. to set the record straight for all of them? How are you going to explain in future job interviews that you *might* have been unfairly fired as a mod but then when going through the official appeal process you were found to be unsuitable for a moderator position, meaning that perhaps they might have been justified in firing you in the first place? Because at the end of the day, SE is allowed to set their own rules. If they choose to set a bunch of rules rigged against you and then find you don't meet their new criteria for reinstatement, they're perfectly entitled to do that. Except that might potentially create some rather big or bigger issues for you, considering how those outside of SE might interpret that.

Again, I hope nothing along these lines happens. I hope I'm being overly paranoid. I hope the reinstatement process is fair and that SE actually wants to do good by you and that the senior people in power actually want to make things right again. It's just that based on their recent actions, I'm no longer so sure about that and if you're not careful, you're potentially going to end up getting burnt. Lawyers are trained to take advantage of nice, kind people like yourself. They're trained to lull you into a trap thinking everything is okay, only to pull the rug out from beneath once it's too late for you to do anything about it. And you don't deserve anything like this to happen to you. You're too nice and you have done too much good for SE to have things end like this. So sorry for my novel, yet what I really want to say is please if you haven't already, I'd highly recommend you get legal advice and have them review any written agreement, email, official process, etc. before you go through with them. This way if there is any trap(s) being set for you then hopefully your lawyer will detect them before you walk into them and/or have backup plans in place ready-to-go if you unfortunately step into one anyhow.

So good luck Monica. I wish you all the best with finding a peaceful win/win/win resolution for you, SE and everyone else. That would be my ideal for everyone involved and you sure deserve that! Unfortunately, not everyone thinks the same, so please just make sure you cover all your bases and protect yourself because SE has proven that they're sure as hell not going to.

Re: Please be careful Monica

[cellio]

Oh wow. That is an excellent point. Thank you anonymous commenter. You're right; if the process does not afford any oversight, if it's just "apply, they cogitate, answer comes out" without anything like a hearing, then they could use a corrupt process to "legitimize" my firing -- "she applied, we reviewed, we denied -- guilty!". I will add this to the list of things to discuss with my lawyer.

Since this new process discussion started I've been pushing for: reverse the bad decision (which they admit did not follow due process), and then follow their new removal process if they think it's still warranted. That would be much more fair, and now I think it's the only chance at fairness.

I can totally believe that people evil enough to have done what they did, including willful defamation that they have refused to retract, are also evil enough to set the kind of trap you describe. Definitely food for thought.

ordeal

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Monica. It seems that there could be some deadlocked commitments on sharing the information, which make this issue so non-transparent. It is interesting who maintains such a deadlock in place.

In some of your posts/comments you mentioned that moderators are not allowed to publish TM chats.
In his apology (https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334551/an-apology-to-our-community-and-next-steps) SE CTO mentions that "We’ll keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community."

If, in some theoretical case, SE gave a consent to disclose all related communications, say with a good purpose to regain community trust, would you also agree on that? Including even messages that can justify SE decision to fire you?

I would like to ask this question on Meta twice, one time addressing you and one time addressing SE (david_fullerton, sara_chipps, shog9).

Thank you,
Evgeny

[https://login.ubuntu.com/+id/hsFMttp]

I've got your blog in my RSS feed reader, Monica. I'm so sorry that you've suffered this treatment, and I'm deeply dismayed at several facets of SO/SE's dismal actions regarding you, and the (imo) strange "policy" it has developed. Both aspects have fundamentally altered my relationship with the network. I'm grateful for its legacy (and its resources that I know, I continue to consult), but I cannot engage with it the way I once did. And that, for me, brings some sadness, too. For a while there, it really did make the internet a better place.

Anyway -- just to say that thoughts remain with you; whatever this kind of "support" really means (if anything), at least you'll know that your integrity remains intact with many in the community who were touched by your wisdom and kindness.

David
--
Edinburgh, UK

[cellio]

Hi David! Nice to see you again. Thanks very much for the support, both here and there. (I meant to respond there, but inbox overflow...) Feel free to send me email if you'd like to continue chatting that way!

Deeper Appreciation

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, other than dialing 911, how to handle this

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/335842/does-stack-exchange-inc-really-care-about-the-lgbtq-community#comment1108456_335842

"I already suffer from anxiety and depression. Reading not nice stuff here makes my anxiety and depression worse. It hasn't done it yet but it could send me in a panic attack (which would lead to an obligatory trip to the hospital). It can also lead to suicidal thought and suicidal thoughts often lead to... suicide... which actually means death. So yeah, this website isn't safe for me anymore."

Also read the actual question by the same person.

I can only think of two alternatives. First, this person might be very emotionally fragile and is serious about this. But she should have left long ago, as if I was deathly allergic to peanuts would avoid Dairy Queens and other places that use peanuts. The real world cannot be made safe. No place can be made completely safe. But "not nice stuff" might happen and might even be flagged pending deletion, but still be visible - the rest of us aren't affected by the basilisks or gorgons.

Second possibility, they have learned they can manipulate people by threats of harm or even suicide. I would point out "death threats" are not covered even by the freest sites, even of the threat to murder one's self. OK, I can get SE to totally revise its CoC, eject people, and make it safespace heaven free of any and every microaggression if I just make the right sympathetic threats... That would be worse (but I've encountered it mayself in person!).

The post tends to focus on some kind of LGBTQ+ - transgender or other, but I would reason the same way for some white cis-hetero-male that expressed they would be so upset to have their code insulted (properly critiqued) that they would have a panic attack, get depressed, and contemplate suicide and please put puppy pix in answers. I would call 911 on them, or say they are threatening just to avoid downvotes.

Whether the original poster is sincere or not, I think it illustrates the dichotomy. Is the key the source, the intent to offend (and harass, express bigotry, etc.), or the target feeling offended, hurt, harmed, etc. even if due to cultural differences, linguistic imprecisions, or just some reminder of a past painful experience. Proactive, attempting to block anything anyone might find harmful, or Reactive, starting with good will, but ending up banning those who appear just to be harassers.

An Aside:

On the Friday code release idea, The Godel Theorem self-contradiction, If the CoC is a program and there is an absolute "right to self-identify" that even overrides any grammatically correct words, why can't I identify as "Not a Bigot", so I could say anything, no matter what, incuding intentionally hateful stuff, but it would be a violation of the CoC to do anything about it because of the absolute "right to self-identify" as a "unbigot".

The error they are continuing is that you can't replace kind, rational people like you - especially those who will take time to try to reason with people - with any set of rules. They aren't losing merely 10% of the moderators, they are losing the moderators who represent their heart.

I would also ask "why not just be done with it, rid yourself of ALL moderators, and hire people or an outsourcing firm to do the moderators' job of removing spam, bad content, and the rest"? How much would it cost if they had to pay for it? They seem to want an IPO. Did they check if the "Teams" or other product would work WITHOUT a community and people like you? Or will people have the same problems and conflicts, but without a robust community so will end up not using it?

The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it

[(Anonymous)]

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336175/what-is-the-process-for-reinstating-a-moderator

The CM decides if they should recuse themselves?

One obvious problem is CM2 reviews what CM1 did instead of independently coming to their own conclusions. Instead of being open to what might be ambiguous and finding otherwise, the bias would be to take the "This is bad" annotations or "I don't see any problem" and rubber stamp them. CM2 will have to work in the same office with CM1 so there would be that too.

In most states Juries have to be unanimous and can't discuss the details until they are sent for a verdict.

If both truly worked independently and both had the same verdict it would be a bit better.

[If] "reinstatement is deemed impossible, the request is denied and the reasons for it will be stated back to PM". - Reasons? Will you get to see the annotations or where you were said to have violated things or ignored requests to change something? Or will it be a blanket "You were found to have violated the Code of Conduct" and nothing more. This will open them up to defamation either way.

That's just the structural part. The other half is I don't think people trust them enough now, and have to go to the accusers to be reinstated.

And just the complexity. Someone who has voluntarily resigned over the drama now has to go through this process to get reinstated?

Re: The reinstatement process is up, but I don't think you are going to like it

[cellio]

Yeah, there are lots of problems in that new process.