![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nine months later, some revised policies at SE
Back in October, Stack Exchange posted some policies for moderators to apply for reinstatement. I and many others raised concerns about transparency, fairness, and that the whole thing was a black box. Some also raised the concern that if a moderator was removed capriciously, without any valid process, it made no sense for that person to have to submit to this process that starts from a presumption of guilt. (The whole thing has a vibe of "we'll evaluate whether you're still beating your wife".) I posted my assessment there and also copied it in this journal for safe-keeping. (One never knows whether the original would survive, after all.)
This week they posted an updated version (feedback post). Let's see how it stacks up against the issues that were previously raised!
Note: this is a systems analysis. I am looking at this policy as policy, looking at ways it can be used and misused. I'm not commenting on specific cases. A policy must be sound before you apply it; saying it would work out in such-and-such case doesn't help if the policy is flawed.
This is a first stab at this analysis. It's not concise. It's not something I would post on Meta for that reason, but I need to work through this to be able to get to a more focused version, and y'all get to read along (if you're still reading).
One of the concerns I've raised several times (not just in that original post) is that a reinstatement process is not applicable when the removal is contested or did not follow processes. There needs to be a way to appeal a removal. The new process adds some "appeal" language, which is good. I understand it was a late addition under pressure from moderators, so I'm glad to hear that moderators can successfully apply pressure at least some of the time.
Let's look at that appeal language. First, the (ex-)moderator still goes in through the "apply for reinstatement" door; there's no shortcut to "appeal". But I guess you can say that in the message you send? An application for reinstatement can be granted by the community managers without going farther up, but an appeal must then go to the "Community Leadership Team (CLT)", described as "leaders from the different teams and groups that work with the community". No, I don't know who that is either. There is a "community strategy" team that include Sara Chipps (a director), Tim Post (a high-ranking non-manager), and someone else I think. There is Teresa Dietrich, the new CPO who started the day after SE fired its two most experienced community managers in the name of serving the community. Sara and Tim report to Teresa. Teresa has been posting stuff about wanting to repair the relationship with the community, but it's hard to tell if there's substance behind it. She has not, for example, reached out to me. These folks are presumably all on the CLT; I don't know who else is.
Appeals must go to the CLT, and the CLT has the option to veto. That's unchanged; the previous version gave Sara's team the ability to veto, too. About the veto, the new policy now says:
The steps below include the option for a CLT veto, which is reserved for rare and extreme cases. Examples include (but are not limited to) cases where the CLT feels that for legal reasons, or due to repeated egregious violations of the Mod Agreement, an applicant could never be a moderator on the network again.
And later it says:
Potential reasons for vetoing reinstatement: violation of Mod Agreement or ToS so egregious that PM cannot be reinstated under any circumstances; potential legal liability; repeat offense after previous reinstatement.
These are all, as it says, examples. They're trying to convey that a veto is for serious, substantiated reasons. This means that if it's known that someone was vetoed, that sounds pretty damning. But they don't actually have to be serious reasons; the CLT can say "legal concerns" or "business concerns" and there's no way to challenge that. This cannot be appealed.
And then it goes on to say:
In the event of a CLT veto, the PM will be informed of decision and reasoning. Mod Council and current site mods will be informed of occurrence as well with as much detail as can be provided.
They're finally actually telling the moderator a reason, which is a positive change from last time. But look! They're also blabbing to the Moderator Council, a new advisory group (with no teeth) with members chosen by SE informed by a vote of moderators who hadn't yet resigned or been fired when the vote was taken. The function of this council is unclear, though (outside of the veto case) moderators whose reinstatement requests are denied can appeal to this body -- who will then advise SE of their opinion.
So even though the moderator can't appeal the CLT's decision to the Mod Council, they nonetheless share their allegations with that council, out of view of the moderator who appealed and where that moderator can't respond. This is a serious privacy violation. It should be up to the moderator whether to inform the Mod Council (who, after all, can't do anything in response, except gossip). Up to this point, the only people who necessarily know that the moderator even appealed are the other moderators on that person's site (because SE gets their input in the first stage). A moderator who appeals a removal should expect to have public conversations about it and might be advised to get out in front of it. Appeals are not for the faint-hearted.
Aside from the CLT/appeal/veto case in particular, the new version has greatly increased communication between SE and the moderator. This is good. In the previous policy, you sent a request into the void and waited for SE to say yay or nay, but if they had concerns they didn't have to come back and talk with you about them along the way. Now they do. And they compile documentation, which I gather is something like a Google Doc that they can all share and add to. I don't think the moderator gets to see this document directly, but I can't tell.
As with the previous version, all applications for reinstatement (and now appeals) must be approved by the other moderators on the person's site or sites. Now, there is a process they've had for several years whereby a moderator team can remove one of its own; in that case it certainly makes sense that you'd need to run a reinstatement past the moderator team. But if SE removed a moderator without involving that team, or if a moderator stepped down (say, to have more time for school, or for a health matter) and wants to come back later, this approval step doesn't make a lot of sense. The community elected the moderator and the other moderators don't get a say in who can stand for election; why should they be able to bar someone who took some time off? This is unchanged, but the new version does raise the requirement a little: previously a single moderator could veto, and now on a site with more than half a dozen mods it takes two vetoes and they need to state reasons. (To SE, not to the moderator.)
In the new process, SE consults this mod team at each escalation, giving more chances for the team to produce that one (or two) vetoes. I don't quite understand what the nominal purpose of these consultations is, since it's probably not meant to be that. Each one adds a week to the process, though; a moderator who expects to have to deal with more than one level of decision-making is in for a long haul.
As with the last version, the review process at SE starts with two members of the community management (CM) team. If they agree with each other (and it's not an appeal), done. If they disagree, they bring in a third. If the CMs agree on reinstatement -- to which they can add conditions -- then the process finishes: the moderator accepts the conditions and is reinstated, or doesn't and isn't. This is a positive change; in the previous one Sara Chipps's team could still step in and say no without giving reasons. But the ability to attach conditions can be abused (more below).
If the CMs deny the request the moderator can now appeal to the CLT. If the CLT says no but doesn't veto, the moderator can appeal to the Mod Council. Both of these escalations are new; previously, all you could do is send email to be ignored. The mod council, as I said, has an advisory role. The 15 members of this council will know details of the application and deliberations; 15 people can't keep a secret, which can work for or against the parties involved. It's more auditing than was possible before, but advisory auditing.
There does not appear to be an escalation path if the CMs (or CLT) reinstate with conditions and the moderator doesn't accept the conditions. That is, you can't escalate over the conditions, only over the yes/no decision itself. It sounds like there's discussion with the moderator now, so I guess the moderator can challenge restrictions that way, but it's very much "take it or leave it" per the policy. They can, for example, require you to publicly say that you will never ever again beat your wife; you didn't, but the implication is otherwise. This is a great way to say you approved a reinstatement (look! SE is fair!) but that demanding mod didn't follow through (bad mod!).
The moderator still cannot challenge judges. The policy says several times that CMs, CLT members, and Mod Council members "can" recuse themselves. There is absolutely no way for the moderator to exclude people for cause. In the case of an appeal, this means that the same people who removed a moderator (or, in the case of the Mod Council, possibly complained about a moderator) can decide whether to reinstate or grant an appeal. As far as I can tell, the moderator won't even be told who the judges are, with the possible exception of whichever community manager is handling the correspondence. The other CM(s), the CLT, and the Mod Council are opaque. Oh, and there's something called the Community Members At Large group that under some circumstances makes the decision; you don't know who they are, either.
I objected last October that the (first) process starts from a presumption of guilt. This is still somewhat true, in that the moderator's application needs to address the reasons for removal (not covered: what if you were never told?), but there is at least now the ability to cast it as an appeal, sort of. I say "sort of" because you can't file a "naked" appeal: you appeal the decision and apply for reinstatement, but the idea of appealing to clear your name isn't covered. Of course, you can appeal, be reinstated, and then resign in that case.
They have closed a loophole in the previous version. With the version posted last October, a moderator could decide that this process was too much bunk and simply stand for re-election instead. A couple months ago they edited that policy to say that ex-mods must go through this new process and can't stand in elections. (Remember, that's even if you took time off to deal with health problems.) The new version adds some nuance to this; if a request is denied, there's a further determination of whether the moderator can stand for election again or is barred forever.
Edited to add: This new version takes steps toward the appeal path, which is good, but misses a really important consideration. It needs to add Step 0: Was the removal done under a valid process? If yes, proceed. If no, reverse and expunge; process ends here. The set of such cases will likely be very small but non-zero.
The previous process was easily riggable. The new one is less riggable for the common case (reinstatement), but appeals are still problematic. Some other flaws of the previous version have been corrected; some new flaws have been introduced.
More work is needed.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The problem is this: a community which forms around the products/services of a specific corporation must either accept complete regulation by the corporation, or avoid it assiduously by not accepting any direction from them. The corporation's goals will always eventually conflict with the goals of the community.
I see it in videogame fans.
I see it in LEGO fans.
I saw it in a nonprofit group that wasn't even organized around a particular set of products, but allowed themselves to be coopted by money until they effectively became an advocacy group for a manufacturer. The group then schismed.
You can't "trust" a for-profit corporation, and you can't even trust a non-profit corporation if it isn't controlled by the membership at large -- a matter that I think you have experienced.
So, I don't think it matters what SE says, or what policies they offer. And I think you're potentially on a good track with Codidact.
General Responses
- The makeup of the Community Leadership Team was [publicly announced on MSE](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/349266/51) before the new reinstatement policy was published. It includes the CPO, Directors of Community and Public Platform, the Manager of Community Management, Community Evangelist and Advocate (that's me), and the Program Manager for the Community team (all are named in that post).
- I understand your concerns with the way that a veto can be used for any reason and it carries with it a heavy implication. All I can say is that while the process itself cannot exist without a veto being there, I know that it is intended to be used as a last resort or for very specific cases.
- The [Mod Council](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/347104/51) was elected by the community of Mods. Not chosen by Stack
- You make a good point about potential for a privacy violation when reporting to the mod council. I will see about having this corrected in the policy. Thanks. If you could think of other ways to improve communication around the appeal part of this, happy to hear them
- All reinstatements being approved by the current mod team: this was something that was feedback from the moderators as a whole. As you noted, they have to have strong reasons (and in our internal processes, we are definitely going to be aimed at reconciliation and mediation between the sides in the event that there are mods who object to the reinstatement).
- Additional consultations with site mods at each step: if nothing changes, will be pretty quick. But in cases where for example there are new questions that come up or new info that is disclosed after the first consultation with the current mod team, designed to keep them in the loop as well.
- Note on process - if the CM's agree on reinstatement and there is an appeal, the actual reinstatement part of it can proceed right away, with only the appeal moving on to the CLT.
- You can appeal the conditions throughout the process. But if the decision is made to stick with the preconditions after the third phase, there is no appeal beyond this (like the reinstatement itself). But you can definitely escalate over conditions if you so choose. And while I understand where you are coming from with your "never again beat your wife" example, if we made a precondition like this (or its equivalent) then this is something that I would expect to come to light publicly (and it is in the best interests of the company and all involved to have this process in its execution seen to be fair when exposed publicly). The preconditions are not intended to be a way to trap the mod.
- While the mod cannot decide on which CMs will be involved, if the moderator has cause the suspect bias from the judges, then they can raise this in their objections when they escalate to the CLT and Mod Council. The process is designed to allow the mod many opportunities to voice their opinion and give feedback, and have it seen by all involved.
- Community Members at Large: I run this group. Defined in same post that defined the CLT. If someone would care to ask on MSE who is included in the group, happy to give more details. TLDR: made of of employees who have lots of experience on the network, including former CMs and high rep users.
Re: General Responses
Please note that we are here at all because the company's position was that intent doesn't matter if somebody alleges a CoC violation. So with all due respect, I don't find appeals to company intent reassuring.
Again, I'm talking process here. It happened to work out that way (though of course no one can audit the voting), but moderators were told that the vote was advisory and SE would decide based on those results. The clear implication is that there were certain outcomes they required or opposed, but other than that they'd leave it up to the mods.
Thank you for pursuing a correction. I will respond separately about communication around appeals. Appeals need a larger reworking, as people have already pointed out on Meta, and communication changes fit into that. But on one foot: the company must tell the moderator the charges first, before any other parties are involved, and the moderator who is most directly affected must have a say in the spread of allegations and progress reports.
As I said, this makes sense when they were involved in a removal. It does not make sense when they were not, and further, it grants an opportunity for someone to veto based on mere dislike. (Mods are smart enough to be able to cast that as a concern about the ability to have a good working relationship. That doesn't mean it isn't BS.) With the original removal process that was in place for years, at least the mods, including the one under possible sanctions, need to talk with each other.
And really, do you think "I had to take a few months off to care for my dying parent?" should subject someone to a barred door because somebody else on the site *still* holds a grudge over that one argument on meta? C'mon, this is grossly unfair.
Good. The process should say that.
But, again, we have only your word for that, and intent isn't sufficient by the company's own actions, and the company has a history that all policies will be read against. You can, in time, make that history more favorable, but it requires you to correct wrongs, including adding Step 0.
Sure, the mod can raise objections -- but the company is not required to address them. Courts usually have a scheme where both judges and jurors can be challenged for cause. Your policy lacks this and, again, relies on trust that is sadly in very short supply. The community does not trust you to exclude people with conflicts of interest. And if I understand correctly, the moderator doesn't even know who the judges and jurors are.
appeals
With the current process, appeals are downstream of reinstatement: a moderator must first secure reinstatement and can then appeal the removal. That's kind of backwards, and it fails to account for the "clearing one's name" use case. The moderator might not want to go back to a site after feeling abused by the company, fellow mods, the community, or whatever led to the problems -- but might still want to set the record straight. You should allow an "appeal" path that does not subject the mod to the necessarily-not-confidential reinstatement process. Sometimes the appeal is more important than the reinstatement.
Relatedly, you should allow anybody, or at least any moderator, to appeal the removal of a moderator. Other moderators, particularly on the affected site, can have a vested interest, if the action is leading to upset on their site for example. Even if the company has driven the moderator off of the site entirely, it should be permissible for somebody else to stand up and say "this is unjust" and challenge it. Of course such an appeal will not necessarily have the benefit of the moderator's direct participation, but that might not be necessary in some cases. And if you allow this you should of course notify the moderator, who can then choose to join the conversation at any level from answering questions if asked to taking over the appeal and directly running it. Sometimes a moderator who has been attacked might despair of support, and allowing other moderators to provide that support can be powerful reassurance and healing. These are the actions of allies, and they're as important on your network as they are in the broader world. Allow the strong to stand up for the weak.
The appeal process assumes that the moderator went through a valid removal process. That is not always true, and when it is not, it is (as I've said before) fundamentally broken and offensive to put the victim through even more pain and trauma.
About communication specifically, you must, first and foremost, clearly communicate to the moderator what the charges are before any action is taken. When that doesn't happen, submitting a "blind" application should not be a prerequisite for finding out. The mod needs to be able to evaluate the claims before making an application that will be shared with somewhere between 3 and 50 fellow volunteers who are not under binding NDAs.
On reinstatements (where that is desired), you said in your comment that if SE attaches conditions the moderator can appeal that. But the policy doesn't actually say anything about that. That needs to be formalized; it's an important guarantee to moderators.
In general, the process needs to be much more respectful of privacy than it currently is. At every stage, a conversation needs to happen with the moderator before you share information with other people. The moderator needs to be able to look at what you propose to share and say no, never mind, and withdraw. And you should never, ever share more information with other people than you do with the moderator, which the current policy implies can happen. Really, for transparency, you should CC the moderator on everything that is sent to anybody else concerning either an appeal or an application for reinstatement. Be ultra-transparent.
There needs to be a way for the moderator to either appeal or publicize a veto. Of course the mod can always do the latter, but it is more constructive to try the former first. If there is no way to appeal a veto, then there is no reason for you to tell the mod council anything at all; the application (of either type) never reached them otherwise, can never reach them, and is therefore not their business unless the moderator chooses to make it their business. Which goes back to needing a way to appeal it. This is in your own best interest, as company leaders have oft complained about the mood on meta. That mood is caused by user frustration over company actions and, often, lack of transparency. Don't force the moderator to throw gasoline on that.
There's probably more, but that's a start. I look forward to seeing the updated version.
Re: appeals
- Renamed main sections to start with A, B, C to make them easier to reference
- Added A.1.2.5: made it clear that we will share with the PM the names of the CMs involved, and that they may include questions regarding CM selection on subsequent escalations.
- In A.5.1: specified that in case of a reinstatement being approved and an appeal pending, the reinstatement may proceed before a decision is made regarding the appeal, if all other requirements for the reinstatement are met.
- In A.5.2.2: made it clear that the PM may appeal preconditions.
- In B.1b.3: clarified that the PM must approve of any details shared with the mod council in the case of a veto.
Regarding appeal without reinstatement - this is something that we are discussing to see if we can do it, and how (would require some big workflow changes from the main process).
Re: appeals
I hope you will continue to work on all of my appeal feedback (not just the "without reinstatement" part; there are other issues there too). Some important points about that have also been raised by others on Meta (and no I was not involved).
I hope you will also allow the PM to challenge judges up front and not only after biased judges have biased others through their participation. A reason that courts allow participants to challenge jurors up front is that it works better to start with unbiased jurors than have a jury "forget" something that was said -- striking things from the record really doesn't affect the mental record.
I see you have not yet addressed Step 0. As I think you are seeing on Meta, you are unlikely to be able to gain the community's trust without that. If the company is not willing to correct its errors, then not only does that show contempt and dismissal of the people it wronged, but as a practical matter, it's hard for people to believe that it will correct errors in the future.
Re: appeals
It's been 15 months; any updates on this?