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

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'.)

Re: Kafka Trap Ahead?

[(Anonymous)]

Go for it. So many people are with you. Like Esther, this might be your time to make a big difference!