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: Torquemada Lounge

[(Anonymous)]

> 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.

Re: Torquemada Lounge

[cellio]

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.

Re: Torquemada Lounge

[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.