cellio | Stack Overflow Inc.: more delays

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

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.

From: (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.

Sara treated me badly in TL but didn't libel me there. She did libel me both in the press and on various Stack Exchange posts. She actually went around cut/pasting a reply to resignation posts in which she maligned me, plus she made a non-apology "apology" post on main meta.

The person who sent the email firing me did lie about what happened in TL. And, for that matter, announced that I'd been fired, which we Don't Do. I don't know if something that's not technically public counts as libel. That's not something I'm focusing on; Sara's damage is much more far-reaching. That TL announcement is just one more piece of evidence that the company thinks its policies, including privacy, are for *other people*.

There is arbtration which (if I understand) would cost you $250, and SE would have to pay the rest, they would have to fly lawyers to your location to conduct it and be very expensive.

There was a kerfuffle with Indegogo over an Arkhaven Comic (by Vox Day, voxday.blogspot.com) where they cancelled the day they were supposed to pay out, and the lawyers figured out that 1K arbitrations might bankrupt Indegogo.

Vox has something he calls his "Legal Legion of Evil" which might provide advice if you don't have a lawyer you can consult with. Sara did libel you, quite publicly.

I think that is one of the things which so upsets the other members of SE. If they merely kept it quiet, they could hide, but by making public libelous accusations, they signalled all their Moderators that it could happen to them.

And in the age of the internet, defamation is very sticky.

Yeah, it's the public defamation that's the real problem. That's hard to fix, and harder the longer it goes, which is why I asked David to expedite. I think what Sara did is libel too, though I'm just someone who's taken classes on defamation and libel (as a professional writer), not a lawyer.

I can't tell if arbitration would cost me $250 or $1000. I also don't yet know the tradeoffs (cost/benefit on both sides) of arbitration versus suing them. I'd like them to resolve it directly with me so I don't have to do either, but as you say, there are other options.

> I think what Sara did is libel too, though I'm just someone who's taken classes on defamation and libel (as a professional writer), not a lawyer.

IANAL too, however I'm not sure you'd win in the States.

IIRC the comment in the register was "we suspended for [our reasons]", which might arguably be literally true (therefore not libelous).

Whether "[our reasons]" are good reasons, or justified, might be a matter of opinion (not of fact) and therefore also Protected Speech.

To be clear I think your suspension and their publication of it seems (without my having heard their side of it) inept, callous, careless, hasty, inexperienced, etc. -- I suspect it's "not literally illegal" on their part though, to borrow a phrase from "xkcd: Free Speech". So beware of putting a lot of money or hope into a court process: that it might be disappointing. Be well, friend.

On the other hand, "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" is a false claim. There were no warnings and thus no CoC violations following warnings, let alone "repeated" on either side. Maybe they went dumpster-diving and found something questionable from the distant past, but the valid search space for that claim is things done after warnings by CMs (employees).

But yes, I know that getting justice in such matters, particularly in the US, is challenging.

dantobias

The U.K. reportedly has more plaintiff-friendly defamation laws, and if the comments were to a reporter of a UK-based publication there might be jurisdiction, but suing there would be difficult and expensive for you to do when you're not over there.

Honestly, I don't think you *need* to do anything. I think that anyone who's looking into this gets a very good picture of your character, your behavior under duress, and if anything, gains respect for you over the whole affair.

Before this happened, I had never heard of you. Now, if I ever founded a company and wanted someone to handle communication, you would be a top candidate.

If you feel legally pursuing SE would cause them to re-examine and possibly resolve things, then that's your choice. However, I don't really see them recognizing the problem (as they still haven't now). I really see little benefit over legal action at this point.

Monica

Stack Overflow Inc.: more delays

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Re: Torquemada Lounge

Expand Cut Tags