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

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?