Stack Overflow Inc.: more delays
Oct. 15th, 2019 08:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioContinuing 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.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-17 08:22 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-17 10:05 pm (UTC)They already mention now they have a "no comment" policy, but it wasn't a PR person or someone giving their own opinion as their own opinion on The Register, it was expressed as an official Stack Exchange position. This needs a formal and well advertised retraction.
In addition, they should reinstate you. Justice delayed is justice denied and they still are delaying. Once reinstated, (with a proper retraction), I think that gets back to zero.
You may want more and should go for it, but I don't think SE's moderators will consider less as anything but SE trying to do more damage control. And every time as I've been watching this and think they can't make it worse, destroy any remaining good will, and make more enemies of the very community that gives them value, they do. You are the issue because the problem is "If it can happen to Monica...", no amount of tweaks to policies and procedures which they didn't follow can fix a trust issue.
That might be the TL;DR - If you can be convinced that they have fixed things and you can trust Stack Exchange again, I think the rest of the community would follow.
That is even a problem with reinstatement and retraction (and an apology) - they can fix the break in a way that doesn't regain trust, or one that would. And the community isn't based on rules, it is based on trust, and rules are corrosive to trust. This is even the problem with the "pronoun rules".
SE doesn't have infinite time or iterations to regain trust, and it won't happen by changing the rules.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-18 04:30 pm (UTC)I know you would like to just restore your previous pleasant relationship with the network, but sadly, you must accept that that is never going to happen. No matter how much you forgive and accommodate. If you have a relationship with SE after this it will be fundamentally different than before.
Your goals of making SE corporation retract its libel and being trusted as a moderator by SE corporation again are incompatible. SE knows this and is hoping you will weaken your pursuit of the former in hopes of also attaining the latter. That's why you are getting little drips and drabs of communication but nothing is timely happening: you're being stalled.
I can't advise you to sue or not sue. Only you can count the costs in time and stress. But I will advise you to not waffle. Either decide to defend yourself, and go immediately into attack mode -- or -- accept the libel damage and put all of SE behind you.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-18 05:12 pm (UTC)Any process that legitimizes "guilty until proven innocent" is unacceptable. They did not follow a legitimate process in firing me, so the only acceptable path to reinstatement is for them to cancel that, not grant an appeal (that leaves open the presumption of guilt). And if they don't address the libel, moderator status doesn't matter.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-18 04:45 pm (UTC)I could believe that an escalation of butthurt culminating in i.a. Aza's resignation could lead to some infighting and even the beginning of the moderator removal process, but I don't see it rising to the level of a summary dismissal followed by a very public and mendacious libel.
So why did Director of Public Q&A Sara Chipps decide to expose her precipitate action to El Reg? Airing its laundry in the press is an uncharacteristic action for SE corp, is it not?
It is possible if not likely that some agency is threatening SE corp on behalf of the lavenders and in order to avoid a public messy lawsuit, the corp has been forced to institute the stupid pronoun rules, and to show its commitment to them by viciously and publicly attacking any visible critic.
Of course this sounds like the wildest of conspiracy theories, so I don't advocate jumping immediately to believing it. But it can't hurt to check.
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-18 05:17 pm (UTC)Aza posted an update saying that resignation was not about me. I don't think Aza pressed SE to get rid of me. I think Sara can't handle constructive criticism (it wouldn't be the first time), wanted to "make an example" to reinforce the CoC even if unwarranted, and chose me as a target for the latter because of the former. But the rot must go higher than her, too, and I don't know what's going on there.