
I'm resigning as a moderator from all Stack Exchange sites, effective today - segfaultbuserr
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389906/im-resigning-as-a-moderator-from-all-stack-exchange-sites-effective-today
======
waste_monk
As far as I'm concerned this (the whole controversy, not this individual
moderator resigning) is good for the internet. Stackoverflow has been a
fantastic resource, but concentrating all the "knowledge-power" (for lack of a
better word) into the hands of one entity and hoping they remain benevolent
has always seemed dangerous. I've been expecting something like this for
years. Especially it they are adding a CoC, that always seems to be a clear
signal of decline in a project.

Hopefully some new sites (with better culture) will start up and we can
consign stackoverflow to the internet archive, or force SO to become
competitive again.

------
serf
[https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389906/im-
resigning...](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/389906/im-resigning-as-
a-moderator-from-all-stack-exchange-sites-effective-today/389908#389908)

tone-deaf outrage-inducing corporate response award goes to...

~~~
ryacko
PR departments are amazing creatures, fine crafting a narrative to convince
others that "it is we who have made it out ahead" while the average attention
span is depressingly...

------
flippinburgers
What is unsurprising is that this is occurring due to a CoC.

------
WomanCanCode
I liked what the moderators and their teams did to make SO and SE sites
interesting to read by keeping away lower quality contributions. But at the
same time, I don't think think the sites were very welcoming to newer
members/contributors. Recently, I have started visiting some of the microsoft
sponsored forums/developer communities. They have no problem if the exact same
questions have been asked many many times already. The use of downvotes button
should also be minimize. Rather, a short reply to something you disagree is
actually quite friendly. Downvotes can sometimes hurt someone feeling because
you have no way of knowing why he/she is upset at what you posted.

------
nefitty
Culture is made by people. If the people who made SE the way it is are
leaving, maybe I'll feel comfortable contributing in the future.

------
jamestimmins
I'd be curious to hear what the proposed ToS changes were that lead to this,
if anyone knows.

~~~
shakna
There's still not a lot of public information, but a little extra can be found
here [0].

> What changed is this: now it isn't enough to not be rude to people you
> disagree with, the new policy forces us to positively affirm things we don't
> agree with. Even disengaging has been ruled out as an allowable solution,
> since that's discrimination and potentially hurtful. That avoidance of
> potentially compromising scenarios is not allowed has been directly affirmed
> by staff members several times over the weekend.

> 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. 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.

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

~~~
ergothus
> 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.

Call me crazy, but yeah, that's an insult. Not a deadly one, but that's like
someone insisting I call them "Doctor" \- I may think they're a pretentious
ass, but it's an insult if I don't follow that small, easy request. And the
tone I read in the above (which, granted, is a tone I'm reading from text)
where they say "even if it's a mismatch for their genetic sex or the grammar
of the language being spoken" tells me they intend it as insult.

It's similar to those that refer to Beto O'Rourke as "Robert Francis" or that
always dropped in "Hussein" when they mentioned Barack Obama - they are using
something technically "correct" as a social attack. And that's insulting.

I understand there are nuances, and I don't fully know all the issues
involved, but this did not give my sympathy for the author. I read this as "I
don't get to be snide and I'm going to try to raise a reasonable-sounding case
and raise the specter of thoughtcrimes in my outrage".

Being polite when you don't want to is basically the DEFINITION of being
polite.

I'm not active on SE sites, and this author probably did great work in
supporting things...but this doesn't sound like an attitude that is a terrible
loss for any site that involves many people interacting.

~~~
shakna
To me, that sentence is first stating a current fact, not the problem. The
problem is in the following sentence.

That is, they acknowledge not using the pronoun is an insult, but SE has now
changed it so that avoiding a pronoun by referring to someone in a different
way is now also an insult.

Like, for example, I haven't referred to you by a gender-specific pronoun. If
you asked me to refer to you as, say, 'she', I would probably still not refer
to you using a gender-specific pronoun. I'd continue to use 'you' or
'ergothus'.

That would not be acceptable under the new rules coming into play.

