
A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies - raesene9
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-forced-slippery-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested
======
raxxorrax
I see a lot of people arguing about mods being too strict.

I abhor the recent trend of content decontamination like many others do. But
for Q&A sites like SE, I think it is a necessity to stay on topic.

Yes, some moderators might have been too eager in some cases, happened to me
too. But since these people are all volunteers, I think they should get some
support from the community.

I mean I might have to look for another job if SE ever gets shut down and a
lot of knowledge would immediately be lost.

Many people seem to know some mods personally. I have spend a lot of time on
that site and couldn't even name one moderator by name/handle.

Quite ironic that a site with a wealth of knowledge has problems with
monetization. Some things in the internet economy seem to be quite off.

~~~
dandare
> necessity to stay on topic

Try a little exercise: ask a computer literate person not familiar with SE to
find out what questions are on-topic on
[https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/)

~~~
aloisdg
Ask about...

    
    
        software development methods and practices
        requirements, architecture, and design
        quality assurance and testing
        configuration, build, and release management
    

Not all questions work well in our format. Avoid questions that are primarily
opinion-based, or that are likely to generate discussion rather than answers.

Questions that need improvement may be closed until someone fixes them.

Don't ask about...

    
    
        explaining, writing or debugging code
        support for tools or products
        finding or recommending products or services, including tools, libraries or packages, programming languages, books, scholarly papers, tutorials, articles, or blogs
        career or education advice
        legal advice or aid
    
    

from the faq/tour:
[https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/tour](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/tour)

------
csande17
This resignation notice from a moderator on the Christianity Stack Exchange
appears to provide the most detail about what's going on:
[https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/brothers-
i-must-go)

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
The whole pronoun drama that is inherently American is tearing down
international communities left and right despite it not being even an issue.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
If it really wasn't even an issue, this wouldn't be coming up as often as it
does, though, would it? To me, "if someone tells you they prefer singular
'they', use that" is non-controversial, just like "if someone tells you they
go by 'Goldie,' use that" should be. Insisting "No, I am going to call you by
the pronouns I believe are 'correct' for you" is akin to "No, your legal name
is 'Marigold,' and I am going to call you 'Mary.'" Insisting that you will
not, under any circumstances, call a person what they've requested you call
them is -- to me -- pretty clearly being a discourteous jerk.

There are a lot of valid complaints about the way Stack Overflow moderates in
general, but I don't get the impression that this particular squabble is over
moderation practices -- it seems to be about upcoming changes to SO's Code of
Conduct. I don't know what those changes are, so I'll reserve judgement. I am
certainly hoping that it doesn't boil down to "I cannot abide being required
to refer to transgender women with 'her' and 'she'," though.

~~~
lonelappde
It's StackEexchange. Pronouns don't matter. I've never seen a reason for this
person pronouns to be used. No one's generalist are topic of conversation, and
it's not a a gossip forum, so there is no reason to use third person pronouns
to refer to users at all!

If this is true, it's damning:

> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or
> disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.

The complaints seem to be about some proposed new rule requiring users to
explicitly write other users' pronouns, for no other reason than as a
_performative_ display of respect. This is quite different from a rule that
says "If a user states that they prefer pronoun X, don't use other pronouns."

~~~
damnyou
Moderators, as community leaders, need to go out of their way to signal
inclusion for trans people. If they are unwilling to they should resign or be
fired.

~~~
charwalker
I think that connects with events like Princess Diana touching a patient with
AIDS, Mr. Rogers inviting a black man to share the pool with him, etc. It's a
top down change the role models (in this case moderators) can implement to
improve equality and show humans as humans which in my experience goes a long
way toward shutting down any *phobic type mentalities. It's never an easy or
quick change but it's important.

~~~
mdomans
You can't force or even ask someone to be a role model because than that's not
being a role model. Much like telling someone to volunteer makes them "not a
volunteer".

------
Jun8
My understanding is that the train of events that resulted in mod Monica
Cellio’s demodding from SE started with a gender-related complaint tweet
([https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-
ta...](https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-
talk-13bf3f90204f)). Companies are now _very_ sensitive to this pattern, esp.
true for SE due to the ongoing changes there.

~~~
lonelappde
That Twitter kerfuffle was in 2018. Has there been ongoing train of events
since then?

Monica mentions "this rule mandates specific, positive actions." but not what
the rule is, which I find disquieting. What is the rule, and if it's so bad,
and also public (it's a new rule everyone has to know, right?), why is being
kept secret?

~~~
Summoner
There's been a steady breakdown of trust and goodwill between SO Employee's
and moderators/power users over the last year. Part of why this blew up so
fast is probably that there's no good will left between the two groups
anymore; and people immediately assumed the worst and reacted in anger.

This is a decent (long) summary of what's been happening.

[https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-
take-a-...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/331513/lets-take-a-look-
at-the-interaction-between-staff-and-the-power-users-of-the)

------
scarejunba
Every one of these community groups inevitably has some sort of internal
political strife of some sort. I've never found any meaning in attempting to
engage their politics in any more than the most basic sense.

The groups always exaggerate the impact of actions upon the rest of us when
it's usually a no-op as far as we're concerned.

E.g. Reddit iama had this massive controversy around a Reddit facilitator
being fired and everyone predicted insta failure or whatever. Lots of time
passed and the product is still pretty damned successful (Bill Gates was on it
within the last year). I'm sure Wikipedia has had "I'm stepping down" posts
and whatnot.

Perhaps the learning is that it isn't a worthwhile way to seek meaning in your
life to give away volunteer hours moderating sites unless they're your own or
you're paid for it. It is a pointless place to put your self-worth because
disagreements will occur and they will be enforced as the site owner desires.
Your hours earn you no power.

~~~
hos234
Misguided yet understandable conclusion.

People enjoy doing things for others. It's a deep Need people have. If mass
violence and wars, natural disasters of all kinds through the ages, have not
been able to make us more selfish and wipe out that need, internet drama is
not going to either.

The process is messy sure, and if you are experiencing it for the first time
it can be confusing, repulsive and misleading. It's not a good idea to follow
those feelings and make conclusions. Because those conclusions will obscure
from your view, the reasons why anything good happens in the world.

~~~
mellosouls
If sure you didn't intend it, but your tone "misguided", "if you are
experiencing it for the first time..." is rather condescending.

Bear in mind there are many of us with many years in the online trenches who
have reached the same conclusion - participation is one thing; giving over a
huge part of your time and energy is more questionable.

Also the idea that people do it out of an altruistic need to help may be true
in some cases but neglects the significant motivation of validation, the need
to feel noticed and appreciated through upvotes and other reputation buzzes,
and the following increase in "power" and "status", which isn't so obviously
positive and healthy.

------
goatinaboat
I have always found Monica Cellio to be a great moderator. If she has been
fired then something is deeply wrong over at Stack Exchange.

~~~
mieseratte
First manager I've had, great guy and despite his shortcomings I'd work with
him again. Straightforward honest guy, did he work well, mentored me well.
Then one day he assaulted another coworker in the break room.

Someone's on-the-job performance doesn't mean they are always and forever in
the right. Given the lack of any concrete evidence posted but lots of hand-
wringing and pearl clutching about vague incidences, I think reserving
judgment is the proper course.

~~~
baud147258
A "Director of Public Q&A at Stack Overflow" answered with:

"We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals
involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what
we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator
violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately.
When we can’t we must take action."

([https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5197))

So it look like we won't have anymore information, at least from the SE side.

The fired mod answered in the comments:

"Inclusion and respect are important, yes! I never said otherwise or did
anything to violate either the current or forthcoming CoC (as best I
understand the latter; y'all _haven 't answered my questions_). Please read
the email I sent in response to my firing. It doesn't have to be this way. "

~~~
lonelappde
I understand SE respecting privacy by not publishing details about the firing.
I don't understand Monica raising a complaint about being fired, giving a lot
of background info, saying he knows why he was fired, but writing in tangles
to avoid stating what he believes triggered the firing. If it's something
about pronouns, or whatever it is, he should say so. Otherwise it's just "I
was fired for something that they think is justified but I won't, but I won't
say what, and I ask your support."

~~~
baud147258
I read that more as "I disagreed and commented on a future CoC change, but I
won't discuss a CoC change that's not been publicly revealed, because it's
beside the point".

~~~
baud147258
Well, I read a post from another ex-moderator[0] and it seems the CoC change
has a part about pronouns, but it doesn't mean that all the changes are about
this and that Monica left because of the changes on pronouns. But that still
doesn't change the fact that "firing" a mod for disagreeing with and
commenting on a future change of a CoC seem wrong, especially since it didn't
look like SE tried to discuss the issue before firing them.

[0][https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/brothers-
i-must-go)

~~~
baud147258
Last comment and I'll stop updating that thread with new information.

So the disagreement and comments by Monica regarding the CoC was about
pronouns. But Monica had waited before another ex-mod talked about this [0], I
think because she didn't want discussion about this CoC change to distract
from her issue (being "fired" as a mod without discussion).

[0][https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-
overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel/5200#5200)

------
Wowfunhappy
I am legitimately curious—and concerned—about the relicensing of answers. It
really seems as though they _shouldn 't_ be able to do that. And if they _can_
, can they also change the license to "all rights reserved by SE"?

~~~
oliwarner
Like GPL, CCBYSA allows you —the licensee— to pick a future version of the
same license. That is, if you receive a copy of work under v3, you can make it
available under v4, no questions asked.

That's all SE has done here. Exercised a clause in the license. If you don't
like that, don't submit content under licenses that allow it.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I don't think that's true, see:
[https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines](https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines)

> Original contributions remain under prior version unless express permission
> to upgrade is obtained.

~~~
oliwarner
Edit: I'm misreading the text[0]. Section 4, clause b:

> You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms
> of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same
> License Elements as this License ...

That only covers adaptations. Ignore me.

[0]: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/3.0/legalcode](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode)

------
dimillian
So much politics about that. I go on on SO from Google, find solution to my
problem. Sometime add my own answers. And sometime I post question when I
can't find solution. End of the story. Why the fuck it need to be so
complicated?

~~~
twic
The problem is, of course, the humans.

------
Pfhreak
Reading between the lines, it looks like a queer mod felt unsupported by SE
over a long period of time, and SE eventually decided to make a code of
conduct change. These mods disagreed with that change (some using language
like "thought crime") which precipitated their resignations?

~~~
commandlinefan
> reading between the lines

The lines here are so blurry, I can’t make heads or tails out of any of this.
All I can tell for sure is that some of the mods are upset about something
(but won’t or can’t say what) and they’re leaving SO. The forced abstraction
of this whole saga reminds me of stories I’ve heard from people who lived
under communist dictatorships: they’d have to peel back multiple layers of
insinuations to try to figure out what was actually meant. The way some of the
commenters on here are dancing around saying anything concrete suggests that
there are a few people who do know what’s going on but are afraid to come out
and say what it is.

~~~
csande17
I read through the resignation notices linked from OP, and this one seems to
provide some more detail:
[https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/brothers-
i-must-go)

~~~
Pfhreak
> If person A comes along and demands that I refer to them by their "preferred
> pronoun" (even if it is a mismatch for their genetic sex or the grammar of
> the language being spoken) and I refuse, that's considered an insult.

Yep, there it is.

~~~
shakna
No, not really.

> Now if I avoid pronouns altogether by sticking to proper names or
> disengaging from the individual, that's being considered an insult too.

It seems like the new CoC requires that not only you don't disparage another's
belief, which is fine and everyone agrees with, but you have to actively show
that you agree with their point of view as well. You can't remain impartial.

------
chance_state
Is there any detail anywhere about why Monica Cellio was fired? Will no one
leak the internal chat that was supposedly the justification for her firing?

All I can see online is everyone vaguely talking around the issue.

Make the facts public and let people decide for themselves.

------
jjakque
Anyone else felt disconcerting about the reoccurring theme of platform
attracts communicated generated content, only to shift interest/motive once
critical mass is achieved?

~~~
marcosdumay
Community starts with good people; creates good content; attracts more people;
that new people tends to average; contents tends to average; new people tends
even more to average; contents quality becomes average; community isn't good
anymore.

The cycle certainly didn't start with groups over a computer network, but I
think it's very unlikely that it started before written texts. So there's ~8k
years window there. It's not literally timeless, but does feel like so.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
GP wasn't talking about the community, but of changes dictated by the
corporation running the website for that community, which is an important
distinction.

------
fabian2k
In most, if not all of the resignations the primary reason for resigning was
the way the firing of one moderator was handled. The internally announced
changes to the policies were not necessarily the reason for the resignations.
The headline is pretty misleading in that regard.

------
sireat
What I am curious why haven't we seen a quality mashup of a SE site? Some sort
of interesting curation/filters etc.

Even the new CC-share-alike allows commercial mixins
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
sa/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) .

So being that SE started with SO and thus heavy programming emphasis there
should be a plethora of interesting mashups.

Instead the only SE content derived sites have been banal copies.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Google will kill it like the Wikipedia clones.

------
jmkni
Spotted this on the hot question list, totally out of the loop on the latest
SE drama, can somebody fill me in?

~~~
latk
There is a perpetual tension between those who want SE to be helping everyone,
and those who want to curate a helpful resource. People involved with
community moderation aspects tend to fall into the latter group.

For the last half decade or so SE has progressively abandoned this latter
group, leading to a lot of pent-up frustration. Some changes SE has made are
sensible (e.g. striving to be more welcoming and more inclusive), but the
volunteer work of curators has only become more difficult. SE refuses to
implement new tools to aid moderation, so that e.g. spam fighting is mostly
done by volunteer projects.

That only sets the general scene. Since the last year or so SE has stopped
engaging the community on Meta, mostly just announcing changes top-down.
Tweets by third parties have larger impact on SE policy than long-standing
complaints by the community. This has led to a further deterioration of the
relationship. The illegal changes to the content license a month ago are a
perfect example of this top-down, uncooperative approach.

Now the actual drama starts: in a closed moderator chat, there was some kind
of discussion or disagreement. I'm not privy to the details. Not all of this
is nice, e.g. it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from
vitriol by other mods. But to everyone's confusion, Monica Cellio was suddenly
removed as a volunteer moderator. She is known as being extremely reasonable,
experienced, and sincere. While she might have tried to discuss sincere
questions, it is beyond belief that she would attack another moderator.

So moderators and other engaged users are deeply frustrated, see a company
that no longer engages with the community, does stupid decisions, and has now
fired one of the best volunteer moderators in a despicable manner. For a lot
of people, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. E.g. one mod I know
decided to resign because they now see themselves completely unable to achieve
any positive change on the site. And if Monica isn't a good-enough mod, how
can they hope to be remotely adequate?

Disclosure: I wrote the linked Meta.SE question. It is my belief that SE the
company and SE the community need to cooperate for both to be successful. Yes,
the community can sometimes be toxic. But the company seems to have given up
completely on engaging with the community, and that does not bode well.

~~~
Dobbs
I really wish more details about this was available.

> it seems that SE is unwilling to protect trans moderators from vitriol by
> other mods.

Reading Monica's post made me pretty sure this was trans related. I'm sad that
I was right.

> [From Monica's Post] unlike the rest of the CoC, this rule mandates
> specific, positive actions.

This is something I've heard many times from anti-trans activists in order to
justify their purposeful, and intentional misgendering and dead-naming of
trans individuals. I'm not saying that is what Monica is advocating, but my
spidey-sense is definitely tingling.

> [From Monica's Post] chastising me for raising issues and saying my values
> were out of alignment.

Again this is something I hear from anti-trans activists. We saw similar
rhetoric from homophobic individuals back in the 90s. That their religion and
values dictated that gay people were bad therefore they couldn't <insert
action here>.

\---

Without knowing more it is hard to say, but even if this isn't about trans
people Monica's arguments aren't inherently right. One person's religious
beliefs don't justify the disregard for others. A very extreme example would
be that many KKK member's religion states that black people are inherently
inferior, and we don't give that belief consideration.

If you know more, please do share, because right now it seems like one sides
arguments are valid, but they can quickly fall apart depending upon the
specifics.

~~~
latk
I understand your scepticism, and was thinking hard about this before I
published the linked post.

Anti-trans and anti-CoC sentiment are certainly part of the issue at hand, but
likely not by Monica. Some of the resignations may be partially motivated by
hate, many of the responses definitely are. However, there are many other
aspects of the firing that are problematic by themselves, regardless of the
reason for the firing.

It doesn't matter what Monica believes, only how she acts and speaks. It is my
understanding (based on hearsay) that at no point in this incident did she
make statements that would be considered transphobic by a reasonable person.
While she was uncomfortable with upcoming CoC changes, she was also asking for
clarification and guidance in good faith. Definitely not in that “I'm just
asking a question!” trolling style. Asking sincere questions would be the sign
of a potential ally, it is illogical to shut those down. However, some of the
relevant correspondence is in personal emails, so we'll never know the truth.

I'm confident that she didn't say or do anything that would violate the
current or upcoming SE CoC, but that the director firing her felt that
Monica's questions were evidence that she would not uphold the upcoming CoC.
This is silly: if a mod feels they are unable to fulfil their position they
can just resign, no need to boot them in advance. I dislike the “thoughtcrime”
meme, but here it might actually fit.

There's also an aspect that I find more troubling, which is the legitimacy of
CoCs. They only protect the community when violations are investigated fairly.
Normally the problem is that the CoC is not enforced enough. Here, a CoC was
enforced without there being a violation, and that gives ammunition to the
idiots who think the sole purpose of a CoC is to silence insufficiently
progressive speech.

Edit 1: the first resignation is in that explicitly lists the CoC as reason
for resignation [1]. The CoC will apparently require that correct pronouns are
used.

Edit 2: the new CoC will allegedly require pronouns, i.e. will not allow the
avoidance of pronouns. As a person who prefers non-standard pronouns, such a
requirement is counterproductive because it requires some people to act
against their conscience, whereas avoiding pronouns still avoids misgendering
and lets everyone save face.

[1]:
[https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/b...](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6718/brothers-
i-must-go)

~~~
compuguy
I'm not perfect, but I understand the need to use the correct pronouns.
Ultimately Stack Exchange needs to make this new CoC public. People should
know the guidelines to post on a site and not unintentionally break rules that
one can't read...

------
hapless
The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not to
(deliberately) mis-gender trans people, or allow user content to do the same.

All these ex-mods wrote these coy essays with discussions of free will and
human rights in order to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

Trans people are surely a more important part of the StackExchange community
and business than a few unpaid volunteers.

I am not sorry that Monica’s feelings were hurt by a demand for basic human
decency.

~~~
yanderekko
>The policy in question appears to be affirmatively requiring moderators not
to (deliberately) mis-gender trans people

This is either incorrect or relies on an unconventionally broad notion of
"misgendering." Normally misgendering is understood to be the act of using
pronouns other than a person's preferred pronouns, the point of controversy is
that now simply avoiding pronouns can be considered an act of misgendering.
This is new territory.

~~~
lilyball
If you very conspicuously avoid using pronouns for someone, it’s pretty
obvious what’s going on and that you’re deliberately avoiding gendering
someone correctly. It’s not as bad as using the wrong pronouns, but it’s still
very disrespectful.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I think we need to see this policy.

Particularly on a Q&A site, avoiding gendered pronouns altogether strikes me
as the _most_ practical policy. It's what I (try my best to remember to) do on
Hacker News. I don't know what pronouns the GP prefers, and I can't very well
ask them right now, so if I have to refer to them, I'll either say "they" or
"the GP".

~~~
dragonwriter
The specific complaint made by one of the mods is that avoiding pronouns for
or disengaging from a specific person to avoid using is viewed as improper
under the new CoC. That's not the same as avoiding pronouns generally, it's
differential treatment of an individual for not conforming to your preferred
gender expression.

------
perlgeek
Do Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky still a say in how SE is run? If yes, now
would be the perfect time to step in and moderate the discussion.

~~~
mellosouls
In the linked post Jeff Atwood is in the comments moaning about the title.

~~~
aedron
I believe it was also Jeff Atwood who, for the longest time, could not fathom
why people did not like being forced to use OpenID to log into Stack Overflow.
Like, he could literally not fathom it and agonized in blog posts over his own
inability to understand people (he was quite honest about it). Even though
they caved on this point, to this day Stack Overflow actively fights new users
trying to get in and participate on the platform (I have long since given up).

~~~
falsedan
Jeff seems to have a lot of trouble empathising with users, especially when
they want something that clashes with whatever he has discovered is the
'right' solution. See blocklists in discourse, why people join unions, &c.

------
LoneWolf123
Back in the day I used to be among top users on that site - they even sent me
a T-shirt at some time. Left several years ago, as the site became toxic.

I'm not mentioning this "top user" thing on my resume anymore, because not
relevant.

The site is still an excellent source of information about all things that
were cool ten years ago, such as Java, Spring, SQL, Python.

------
Havoc
RIP SE

Reminds me of the company take overs where the key asset is human capital and
they all just walk out the door after the deal. Congrats you bought an empty
building for billions

Don't think SE is ever going to be profitable if they can't keep key figures
happy

------
fffjdtcsebj
> "they think I will in the future violate a thoughtcrime-style provision of a
> Code of Conduct change that hasn't been made yet"

Seems like a code of conduct issue?

------
calibas
Why did this story drop off the front page so quickly when it was one of the
most popular?

Is the flag system being abused?

------
umvi
So why hasn't an alternative to SO emerged where users can come, everyone who
thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, ask and learn!
Come, ask questions and get expert answers without money and without price

~~~
MauranKilom
Isn't that how literally any forum operates? Maybe the SO format has some
merit that made it come out so far ahead of any kind of forum?

------
johnwheeler
The old system, whatever it was, incentivized bad mod behavior and ruined the
experience.

------
MrStonedOne
This is natural selection at work.

Stack Exchange has become a frustrating site to use.

"Closed as duplicate: different and unrelated question"

reopen further explaining the question and how its not related

"Closed as duplicate: the first question that was immediately closed with no
replies"

OR!

Google around, find SE link on issue, everybody is arguing about why the user
wants to do it that why, convinces them to do it another way, only I don't
have that option, so I open my own question, and its closed as a dupe of the
one from google where the original question was never answered.

or

Post helpful answer that actually answers the users question as asked without
berating them for wanting to do it that way

Get yelled at in the comments for creating noise?

\---

The moral of the story is that stack exchange _needs to die_ so that something
else can come from its ashes that is able to look back at SE as an example of
how not to do shit.

~~~
rusk
Ah yes, the good old "X/Y Problem" [0]

Doesn't matter if Y is non-negotiable, or if I've purposely constrained Y, to
get a specific answer for a specific technology.

How infuriating for a "Questions and Answers" site, to be told when you're
asking a question, that the question you're asking is wrong, and that _" you
should instead have asked ..."_

I swear to god, the SO mods are the dumbest, most priggish, humourless
beaureucrats in existence.

[0] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-
the-x...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-
problem)

~~~
ceejayoz
About 90% of the time it _is_ an XY problem, though. A couple clarifying
questions and it turns out the OP really needed something much simpler.

For example, people who insist they can’t use a Laravel package because of
“performance”, but it turns out they just don’t know how the composer
autoloader works.

~~~
wokwokwok
No... Just answer the question.

You’re not there to babysit the question asker or convince them to change
their approach/hair style/choice of library.

I know it’s frustrating to see people doing something wrong, or that you don’t
agree with, but you know what you can do?

Just... don’t get involved if you can’t answer the _actual question_ that was
asked, and if it’s a bad question, let it die a natural death.

~~~
dirkt
If Y actually has an answer - but often enough Y is so convoluted that it just
won't work.

Asking the poster about X, and offering a solution Y' which will solve X
should at least be attempted.

If the poster insists on Y, then he'll also have to accept the answer "sorry,
you can't do it that way, for the following reasons".

~~~
wokwokwok
> Asking the poster about X, and offering a solution Y' which will solve X
> should at least be attempted.

No!

Goodness me, why is this so difficult?

It should _not_ be attempted. That’s an arbitrary expression of _your opinion_
on the poster.

If the question can’t be solved in the way it’s asked let it die gracefully
with a “no you can’t do it that why” and suck up the down votes when someone
comes along and proves yes you actually can.

I know it’s frustrating _for you_ , but asking a question _isn’t about you_.

It’s a glib response to suggest that this is just done when Y is a terrible
question for new users.

It’s also very common when Y is a very good __just very difficult or obscure
__question.

I think it’s quite clear that a common sense approach isn’t working on this
topic.

The solution really is, if you have nothing meaningful on topic to contribute,
then don’t.

There really needs to be a way to make this behaviour on SO punitive somehow,
giving people points for it results in the current situation.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Well, I disagree despite the condescension (which isn't as disarming as you
think, btw).

Qs on a Q&A site become a sort of permanent record that other people stumble
across, not just a wham bam thankya ma'am transaction that only the Q-asker
sees. By revealing XY problems, a better service is provided for everyone who
stumbles upon the Q.

> Goodness me, why is this so difficult?

Because not everyone agrees with you. This faction war has been going on at SE
forever.

~~~
ratww
> Qs on a Q&A site become a sort of permanent record that other people stumble
> across

The fact that it is a permanent record that lives on is another argument in
favor of the "just answer the damn question".

Context changes. Requirements change. Someone in the future might need the
exact answer for some reason, but instead they get some useless back-and-forth
and low-effort condescending answers that is super-specific to that asker.

Asking for more context, adding disclaimers before answering or linking to
alternative solutions in the comments is fine, but it's a pain in the ass when
the answers doesn't match the questions.

------
workthrowaway
that's like, not a "large number" but i digress... just wanted to say that i
empathize with the mod that wrote they just were just tired. mods getting
tired is reason #1 i left a few communities in the past.

it usually means that things aren't looking good. but there is little that
could be done about it. i have not seen it last though. a new wave of people
tend to come along with a fresh view on how to handle things. the meantime,
though, is what's hard to live through. it's what makes people tired and what
makes them move on...

------
legostormtroopr
Its bittersweet to see Stack Overflow continue its downward spiral. Given all
that is happening there, I'd give it about 12 months before they start
implementing a paywall there of some description.

~~~
Insanity
I doubt the paywall idea to be honest. They have other revenue streams like SO
for teams.

------
middleload
It's not clear to me. Were those people paid or volunteers?

~~~
raesene9
mods are volunteers, who provide their time for free to improve the site, I'm
not aware of any mods that are paid.

~~~
ianai
How is that acceptable? People need to be paid for working.

~~~
johannes1234321
Volunteering is a common concept in many communities. We have volunteer fire
fighters, volunteer paramedics, volunteer librarians, volunteer social worker,
volunteer ...

Some of these in fields, and sometimes even in close alignment to payed
people.

In the context of SO there is a community producing Creative Commons (while
there was recently a license change making the company less trustworthy)
contents to help people and some people love helping others and the assumption
is that the value this brings to all is bigger than the value for the company.
Until recently the combination seemed to work. The company runs the platform
to advertise their job boards and enterprise versions of SO and the community
manages the content. But recently changes seem to be frustrating.

For comparison see also Wikipedia volunteers vs. Wikipedia foundation, Mozilla
foundation&corp vs. Contributors, and even people happily submitting pull
requests to Microsoft products on GitHub.

~~~
syshum
Wikipedia and Mozilla were at one time mainly Non-Profits that people
volunteered at for the same reason people volunteer at other non-profits, to
benefit wider society

Both are turning more and more to be more profit-seeking, (Mozilla more than
Wikipedia ) and it is tarnishing their reputations

SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like
Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".

Generally speaking, I do not believe For-Profit business should be allowed to
seek Volunteers for their labor, this includes SE, Reddit, etc

If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit
Foundation, not a for-profit business

~~~
mieseratte
> SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like
> Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".

> If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit
> Foundation, not a for-profit business

Considering executive compensation at many non-profits, I don't think non-
profit status alone is a good indicator of anything.

As for SO / SE, I didn't volunteer time and effort in light of their non-
profit status, I volunteered in light of their mission. It was about putting
in some amount of effort to make the world a better place. I couldn't care
less if they made money off of it, just like I don't care if someone takes my
open-source work and manages to make a business of it.

------
mellosouls
There is no detail of the actual argument, just loads of people claiming to be
in the know and indicating toxic behaviour and dramatic battles behind the
scenes.

There's a lot of flouncing resignations and "we need to talk" style essays
also revealing little of substance.

Considering the passion involved some people have clearly been hurt, but
perhaps that's due to the amount of time they have invested in somebody else's
commercial enterprise ("our community") while believing it's something more.

Perhaps what they are trying to say is the "something more" (presumably the
voluntary contributions) is being undermined by paid staff. It's not clear.

At the moment it all reads a bit like a tin pot Game of Thrones though.

~~~
mieseratte
> There's a lot of flouncing resignations and "we need to talk" style essays
> also revealing little of substance.

I feel similarly, I've read all of Monica Cellio's posts and still have no
real idea what is going on. Lot's of talk of DMs and messages and emails, but
nothing concrete posted, just he said / she said, all while alleging personal
innocence and purity.

If there is some concrete evidence and examples, put up or shut up. This is
the internet, your word isn't worth much.

~~~
Dayshine
Well, they were internally discussing a proposed Code of Conduct. I imagine
mods are bound by an NDA, and management are choosing not to share.

~~~
wendyshu
Ah. Very frustrating to read complaints that omit key info. Would have been
nice if they explained that they're under an NDA.

~~~
SnarkAsh
I agree it should have been clarified, but the initial intended audience was
meta users who would be familiar. Elected moderators need to accept the
[https://stackoverflow.com/legal/moderator-
agreement](https://stackoverflow.com/legal/moderator-agreement) agreement
before they're giving their privileges, and they have to agree not to disclose
any information that they get obtain using their mod access, such as the
private discussions between moderators and staff here.

It might not be legally binding, but Stack Overflow could plausibly delete
their account as punishment.

------
quantguy11959
I got downvoted to oblivion for reporting a bug to them, with several SO devs
trying to explain it’s not a bug, this doesn’t surprise me.

------
rurban
Without studying it thoroughly I would comment: Great, finally! Moderator
abuse was the biggest problem on SO, without any oversight.

------
nfogort
Yay, maybe interesting questions/discussion won’t be shut down now!

~~~
Avamander
I have the feeling the people who fought back at the annoying closing and
overly strict rules got pushed out, not vice versa.

------
wendyshu
What's the best alternative to Stack Overflow?

~~~
danesparza
Well ... Google?

 _shrugs_

~~~
commandlinefan
Nearly every google search I’ve done for the past decade pulls up SO first.

------
cannabis_sam
The whole concept is pretty asinine:

”Collect points to gain the power to fuck with other peoples questions!”

------
chrshawkes
I personally decided to boycott the site for several reasons explained here.
In short, the site allows dicks to run rampant and I find more answers on
GitHub these days.

[http://bit.ly/2mfUvCs](http://bit.ly/2mfUvCs)

------
_Codemonkeyism
Stack Exchange has developed the same group of power people that rule
Wikipedia. They have arcane rules with the major effect of keeping people out.

Stack Exchange is good to read, but hard to ask a question that is not
immediately due to some rule.

------
ykevinator
The moderators don't add value.

~~~
mellosouls
I think this is untrue. Some do, some less so.

Certainly there is a toxic tendency for _some_ mods to become power crazed,
assume a higher understanding of the world than the lowly non-mods and mod
everything into oblivion.

There is also sometimes a tribal back-slapping tendency that doesn't always
weed out this nonsense but encourages it.

I don't know if that is involved in this case.

~~~
SnarkAsh
There are a lot of very toxic moderators on the network.

As far as I recognize, none of them are among the resigned. They'll probably
be more prominent now that reasonable kind people like Monica have been
removed.

------
thrownaway954
In order for a community to succeed, there must be a continual rotation of the
people in power so that no one can be corrupted by it. Moderators to me are
the same as a dictatorship. There shouldn't be any moderators on SE, the
community should be voting on what is valid question and upvoting the best
answers as it has always done. There is no need for a single person to police
each community. If something is off topic then the community can vote on
removing or moving the topic or answer.

The issue with SE is the fact that they have allowed moderators to have too
much power and too control over the communities. In changing their policies it
has caused a removal of the moderators so that communities are force to come
together to survive then I feel that this was a good step for SE as a whole.
Though there will be some hard times at first I think that SE will become the
site that it founders actually envisioned.

~~~
baud147258
I think the issue is not just moderator vs rest of the community, but also SE
company (well, its employees) vs the moderator vs the rest of the community,
with all groups having different purposes and goal (and even the moderators
and community have more sub-groups, around openness, quality, governance and
so on). It's not just the case of mods having too much power.

~~~
baud147258
And one could even add more fault lines, between SO's community and mods and
the rest of the sites of SE, since the rest of the sites don't have the same
issues as SO, for example regarding discrimination, inclusivness,
welcoming..., but rules are made and applied by the SE company on all the
sites, creating even more issues.

