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

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.

Re: Temprament

[cellio]

That you can completely disagree with some fundamental value, but recognize as a person someone is made of gold.

This should be what we all aspire to. I've had vigorous debates with people with whom I fundamentally disagree on important matters, but we've both come out of it stronger because it was respectful and we both learned stuff. Caleb talked about that some in his resignation post on Christianity. He and I have fundamental religious differences, yet we respect each other.

One on one, you can learn over time to gauge how resilient the other person is and adjust. In a room that 600 people can visit, there's bound to be somebody who is super-fragile about something, and you find out about it due to an explosion because the person feels hurt and can't engage constructively. I'm not blaming, just analyzing. Online chat, where all you have is text and it's often real-time, well, there be dragons. TL now has dragons.

To me, diversity is about encountering different perspectives, some of which you'll think are Very Wrong and some of which will mystify you. To some, however, diversity is about having a place where you don't have to hear things that are Very Wrong. These views can't coexist in one place, alas.