
An apology to our community, and next steps - SnarkAsh
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334551/an-apology-to-our-community-and-next-steps
======
rando444
From the comments.. for anyone that didn't scroll all the way:

 _Before "apologizing", you need to come clean: did you lie?_

 _Earlier, you (Stack Exchange) wrote:_

> _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._

 _However, Monica disputed that she had received repeated requests to change
her behavior._

 _Clearly one party here is lying, and much of the community believes that
party is Stack Exchange._

 _So—did you lie, or not? Your "apology" is meaningless until you clean this
up._

~~~
novaleaf
neither party may be lying. for example, Monica may not have received explicit
official reprimands, however SO may feel that rejecting her position multiple
times during communications meets this criteria.

~~~
manicdee
That’s a pretty low bar and if accepted will place a chilling effect on any
debate in moderator lounges.

Note that the essence of the debate is: “you must always use the person’s
nominated pronouns” versus “you can write in such a way that pronouns aren’t
used at all.”

To me there is a huge difference between, “you can write inclusively without
talking about a person in the third or second person” and “I refuse to accept
this attempt at inclusive regulation.”

But we will see what SO dredges up in order to justify their position that
debates in a moderator lounge are the equivalent to formal requests.

~~~
novaleaf
Oh I agree that it's a ridiculous reason and SO needs to clean up it's act.

I just don't think fixating on very small factual ambiguities helps anything
except political ratholeing.

------
miles
From a comment by rolfl[0]:

> _This apology has come not a moment too soon.... for the past days, almost a
> week, now, moderators from across most sites have collaborated on
> communicating our concerns to the SE staff. We have been working "in plain
> sight" of the SE staff (using the TL to collaborate). ... The timing of this
> apology appears to have been in a race to beat our statements about the
> issues._

The comment was updated to include a link to
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-
stack-e...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack-
exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) , which in turn links
to: [https://dearstackexchange.com](https://dearstackexchange.com) .

[0]
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001)

~~~
larkeith
Note that Fullerton's apology lacks any reference to Stack Exchange's turn
towards the press during the controversy. As brought up in the Dear Stack
Exchange letter (and in numerous Meta posts over the last week), it is
concerning that SE would be willing to make a (potentially libelous) statement
to the press, while refusing the same to the community.

This conspicuous absence makes me question the authenticity of the apology.

~~~
cmroanirgo
In this post, Mr Fullerton 'takes the brunt' of the blame, clearly defusing
any more singular issues with the various individuals involved. This has the
unfortunate side effect of highlighting how SE is _not_ a community run
system, but is more of an oligarchy. One wonders how it could have been
handled better, but still, all decisions went through one person and it wasn't
a _community_ that did it.

~~~
_Understated_
My take on that decision is it's because SE is a business: They use the
community to MAKE money.

Now, it's not entirely one-way as they need to be providing value to the
community in order for it to continue but business decisions need to be made
at some level and the community level isn't the place for it.

If SE perceived a loss in profits from community members' actions then they
need to take steps to mitigate that loss and I suspect that's what they
did(rightly or wrongly).

Not trying to defend SE's actions, or those of the community (I have no
opinion on the matter and, not to make light of the issue, I don't really care
either) but a mistake that I sometimes make is thinking businesses make
decisions for reasons other than profit.

In saying that, if SE thought that putting it to a community vote (or whatever
best decision making tool the community could use) would make them more money
then they likely would have... makes good business sense.

Just my £0.02

------
dang
I think these are the main previous threads, in reverse order:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344)

~~~
609venezia
For other folks who might have made the same misreading I did:

This thread is a new post from stack, not another link to 21153224 which has
the similar title "update to our community and an apology"

The new post is @ 199 upvotes versus -1278, so the reception so far seems to
be very different

------
progman32
Codes of conduct tend to be driven by (and serve to protect) the group's
intended purpose. Gender is a big part of our language for many reasons, some
better than others. We should be aware of our goals when dictating what is and
isn't acceptable, _especially_ on a technical Q&A forum like StackExchange.

Wanting to know someone's gender can be reasonable. But... on StackExchange? I
can count on a single set of digits the number of times I've personally
witnessed someone knowing someone else's gender leading to anything better
than a neutral outcome. Doctors factor highly in that list. Then dates. Online
people... well, only when it was extremely on-topic. Like a time I saw someone
getting advice on 6-point racing harnesses vs. 5-point (re: strap geometry to
protect the lower body).

As an example, let's take scicomp.stackexchange.com (computational science).
Neither a participant's sex nor their gender is an appropriate topic there,
with few exceptions. Is a reasonable policy there to avoid _all_ gendered
pronouns when referring to other users, unless there's an on-topic reason? Is
using "they" or the user's handle _worse_ than bringing gender into the
conversation, when this is clearly off-topic? Monica seems to be negotiating
for the _option_ to use gender-neutral language. What are the pitfalls if we
mandate it? The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small
molehill to die on.

Personally, I've always found it strange that we collectively broadcast our
gender so far and wide. We don't continually mention each other's race, hair
color, handedness, or preferred sleeping position on every tenth word, yet we
often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it so?

Thoughts? Very curious to hear from others. To be clear I have no problem with
someone expressing their sexuality, gender, or other aspects of their
individuality. I'm a fairly odd cat myself (particulars are irrelevant) and I
relish being able to express myself authentically when it's helpful to some
goal. I guess I'm mostly challenging the central role gender plays in our
language, and asking whether or not we should change this to allow people more
flexibility in what they disclose.

~~~
yoz-y
> technical Q&A forum like StackExchange.

I believe most of these issues have risen after SE has opened doors to topics
beyond tech. As soon as you stop talking about things but about people, you
will encounter people problems.

> We don't continually mention each other's race, hair color, handedness, or
> preferred sleeping position on every tenth word,

In many written languages, and English in particular, you have gendered
pronouns which you more or less have to use. Sentences that avoid referring to
people with pronouns are awkward and forced.

> yet we often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it
> so?

In real world relations you often see a person first and "assume their gender"
based on how they look, before knowing their name. In some cultures the
greeting is different depending on the gender of the other person.

~~~
zeckalpha
> Sentences that avoid referring to people with pronouns are awkward and
> forced.

Your post avoided pronouns. Was it awkward and forced?

~~~
yoz-y
This is how I write so no. But I did not actively choose to avoid using
pronouns, only gendered ones. In this case it was easy because there was not
much need for them anyways.

------
jawns
> We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing
> so skipped several critical parts of the process.

Okay, got it. Acting in haste can lead you to make critical errors of
judgment. Smart to slow down so you don't make the same mistake again.

> On Monday, October 7, we’ll be sharing a second draft of an update to our
> Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback.

Good call. Get feedback on the revised plan from the moderators to whom it
will apply. Smart move.

> On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced
> publicly.

Wait, what?

You just said that you need to slow things down because you acted too quickly
the last time and ended up screwing things up and causing a lot of pain, which
is the reason you're apologizing in the first place.

And now the timeline between "solicit feedback" and "release document
publicly" is three days?

How in the world are you going to be able to thoughtfully incorporate any
feedback other than typo corrections and still meet this deadline?

There is no reason to solicit feedback unless you actually plan to listen to
it and to be prepared for that feedback to say that the draft still needs
work. But this timeline does not allow enough time for that to happen.

~~~
wendyshu
I suspect they've essentially decided on the new Code of Conduct and any
solicitation of feedback will be perfunctory.

~~~
StudentStuff
The CoC is almost certainly already written, but this quip is a cherry on top:

> We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process,
> privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely
> private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

So they're going to demand she stays hush about what they say to her unless
they approve? Seems extremely dishonest and scummy to try and control someone
you've already wronged.

~~~
oliwarner
The We in "We’ll keep those discussions completely private" is SE, not SE
_and_ Monica.

~~~
simonh
The "unless we both agree" bit implies they reserve a veto on her releasing
anything.

~~~
oliwarner
Literally speaking, sure. Absolutely it could mean that or half a dozen
different things.

In the context of an apology about being heavy-handed, I highly doubt it means
they intent to suppress speech from a third party that they have no power
over, implied or otherwise.

~~~
fourthark
She mentioned in her post that she did not think it would be legal to release
some of the conversations she has had with SO employees.

------
nindalf
I can’t follow what they’re apologising for because I don’t have the context
on what happened. Understandably, they don’t elaborate on their mistakes and
instead focus on the apology.

Can anyone give a short summary of what happened?

~~~
amq
A good summary and the timeline here:
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/)

------
fouc
The answer by Squeamish Ossifrage is interesting because they try to call out
SO on a variety of stuff that sounds like what any other large tech company
tries to do, with the slow and steady tactics of trying to gain more control
or power and encroaching on user rights. [0]

It's also interesting to ponder if the StackOverflow community format is
subjecting them to more calls of transparency than other sites might get.

[0]
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573)

~~~
humanrebar
Reddit goes through waves of the same kinds of issues.

------
6nf
So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded,
and they still won't reinstate her. Nothing to see here.

~~~
zeta0134
> So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded

Direct from the apology:

> We’ll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process,
> privacy, and to discuss next steps. We’ll keep those discussions completely
> private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

> ...and they still won't reinstate her.

Again, a direct quote from the apology:

> We’ll be sharing with our moderators this week our proposed processes for
> handling situations like this in the future. This includes a process for
> handling moderator removals, and a process for reinstating moderators who
> wish to be reinstated.

I don't want to provide too much additional input in this reply, because I
believe David's words adequately speak for themselves. However, I do believe
that taking those two points private and discussing them outside of the public
view is the correct choice. Emotions are already running high on both sides of
the argument, and it's not a bad idea to give everyone a moment to breathe,
and come at the situation rationally. We should give them a chance to work it
out.

~~~
CathedralBorrow
That's kind of like punching someone in the stomach, then later apologizing
for not following the correct punching procedure and for not respecting their
privacy by punching them in public.

~~~
Chris2048
Except there's never a good reason to punch someone in the stomach, but mods
do sometimes need to be removed.

~~~
CathedralBorrow
True, the analogy doesn't really hold in that sense. The point of not
apologizing for the 'what' but only the 'how' still stands I think.

------
gnicholas
> _We’ll keep those discussions (with the erstwhile mod) completely private
> unless we both agree to share any of it with the community._

Does this mean they're looking to prevent the mod from speaking out unless SE
agrees to public release? Or is the first "we" (in "We'll") different from the
second we ("unless we both")? Hopefully this is just sloppy/rushed drafting,
not forced secrecy.

------
throwawaypolicy
> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they
> couldn’t participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly
> enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we
> made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express
> themselves and be addressed according to how they identify.

So wait - what are they apologizing for?

If I understand this situation correctly there are basically two sides:

\- The people who put in place the new code of conduct, who think that they
"hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn't participate
authentically..." by not putting this code of conduct in place fast enough.

\- The moderator who fired/the people who resigned who think they "hurt
members of our LGBTQ+ community when they couldn't participate
authentically..." when they put in place the new poorly thought out policy

Is this intended to double (triple? quadruple?) down on the original position?
Or apologize for it and move to the second?

~~~
Lazare
They are apologising for 1) not implementing the new CoC fast enough and 2)
not being clear enough when they did, which led to people arguing about what
happened, whether a CoC is even a good idea, whether or not people should be
forced to use other people's preferred pronouns, etc.

So yes, this is intended to strictly double down on the original position.

------
Just1689
I would encourage Monica to watch out for any "Let's keep this private"
language. In situations like this one some organizations have tried to
disempower people by barring them from discussion with advisors, family or
others.

Another way they do this is by saying, as in the apology "keep those
discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with
the community" but they will phrase it as a binding agreement.

------
nudpiedo
> Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made [members of the
> LGBTQ+ community] a target for harassment as people debated their right to
> express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify

I wonder how is that possible, the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to
be and regarding QA, is there any question in which people cannot ask anything
and should not be replied with a proper rationalized argumentation?

How does it help a bullied child to be the protected kid of the teacher? In
the other hand the day we stop having open debates, QA and knowledge, we will
be going backwards in scientific evolution, no matter what the topic is.

~~~
mhuffman
It really is absurd! Bullying anyone for anything will already get you kicked
off of those sites. It is such an odd hill for them to want to die on.

------
guardiangod
My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in
this update, yet I believe this is a first good step.

However, the update accumulated to the 'fix' being SO will release an updated
CoC on Oct 7/10/11 with inputs from all mods, and an updated mod firing
process. These are absolutely essential, no doubt, but incomplete.

What is missing, in my opinion, is the update still did not address how the
original conflict came to the firing of a respected member. The most sincere
way to apologize would be to use this failure of process as an example, to
showcase how SO erred and how SO intends to change. Finally, a separate,
public apology to the fired mod, with specific example of how SO mishandled
each step, is crucial in regaining the trust.

EDIT: After giving some thoughts, I realize that SO is apologizing, not for
wrongful termination, but for not privately firing the mod with due process.
In SO's management eyes, the firing is still justified. Fine. Explain to us,
with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re-
conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.

~~~
mirimir
> how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion
> restrictions

It seems clear that, in their updated CoC, the requirement to be respectful
trumps religious restrictions. And that's pretty much the standard here, isn't
it? I can't imagine rudeness being OK here, even if it's required religiously.

~~~
reitanqild
You are writing as if there is a conflict here.

Rudeness never was OK.

Problem is she wasn't rude. She was communicating exemplary and no examples
have been given of anything else. What is happening is she's been tried for
thought crime in a secret court and it seems her professional[0] writing style
_can be construed_ using the necessary mental gymnastics as her not wanting to
please the wishes of certain people.

[0]: again, not only professional but also exemplary based on all we've heard.

~~~
mirimir
I'm not saying that Monica was rude. I'm not even talking specifically about
her, here.

I'm postulating the existence of a religious person who would (for example)
refuse to use "he" for a biologically female person who identifies as male.
But would instead use singular "they", or passive voice, to evade the issue.
I'm not saying that they would insist on using "she". Just that they wouldn't
use "he".

That might be her position, based on two meta threads.[0,1] But she doesn't
actually say that. Others sort of say that, and she doesn't correct them. And
certainly I may have missed her clear statement. But as I've said, I'm not
claiming that to be her position.

So anyway, if someone actually did refuse to use declared gender, that would
arguably be rude. Or at least, it would be perceived as rudeness, which is
arguably what matters in communities.

0) [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-
mods-...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and-
forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper/334101)

1)
[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)

~~~
dr_dshiv
I don't know why religion gets involved. Requiring every else in the world to
treat them with gloved hands _at risk of public shaming_ seems rude to me.
Bullying, even.

Is there a thread I can follow so I can "woke" myself on pronouns? I
definitely fear LGBT+ now in a practical way. I'm naturally anti authority and
I don't like this authoritarianism -- but I don't want tar and feather.

~~~
mirimir
Religion only gets involved when people cite it to justify their behavior.

As much as I intellectually and emotionally support people's right to self-
determination, it is a little frightening how fast things are changing. It's
even more frightening how polarized things are getting. My best bet is
listening carefully, being polite, and avoiding offense. Not that I'm always
successful.

------
anonymousab
On the plus side, this issue has taken the spotlight off of the advertising
and tracker issues for them.

------
logicchains
Does anyone else find it ironic that Stack Exchange, a company which replaced
a website that was often misnamed "ExpertSexchange", is now going through
controversy related to the misnaming of sexchanged people?

------
barry-cotter
Mostly another non-apology. Not sorry for what they did, but for doing it
arbitrarily, without following a procedure, and for not taking account of the
Jewish holiday Monica was observing. Instead of just imposing the CoC they’re
going to rush it through three days of discussion, then impose it.

~~~
mellosouls
Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling, although
it's late and a response to the snowballing community reaction rather than
because it's the right thing to do.

Of course, it's _possible_ that that reaction has prompted genuine reflection
and contrition and the apology is sincere as well as a panic measure.

~~~
protomyth
Groveling isn't an apology. If you ever have to make an apology of this type,
always apologize to individuals before groups and before stating your mission.
It reads better and gives the impression you care about the person. Also, undo
what you did if you can, otherwise it's "sorry, not sorry".

~~~
mellosouls
A grovelling apology is _certainly_ an apology, even if sometimes unseemly and
issued in desperation rather than (or in addition to) regret.

But sure, there might be better ways to do it.

~~~
protomyth
_A grovelling apology is certainly an apology_

Well, yes by definition, but groveling is not, in and of itself, an apology.
Generally in an apology you undo what damage you did to the maximum extent
allowable or offer some sort of compensation.

~~~
joshuamorton
That is not how any apology I've heard of has ever worked. Apologies are an
acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or of pain caused, usually combined with an
attempt to avoid the same wrongdoing in the future.

All of that is evident here. Actions to make right a prior wrong (of which
there are some here too) are not normally a requirement, although they can
apology.

~~~
protomyth
I guess I was taught differently. Apologies without positive action are
hollow. Repentance requires positive steps and attempts to fix and undo the
harm you have caused. How can a person truly trust an apology has meaning when
harm is left in place?

~~~
joshuamorton
Positive action need not be to fix what has already happened. Steps to prevent
a repetition are still positive action, and imo do more to instill confidence
that a behavior won't be repeated than an attempt to fix the existing mess.

Not to say that one shouldn't do both, but often it isn't possible to fix
something you're apologizing for. That doesn't make sincere apology
impossible.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
In this case, it would be easy to give her the mod position back. So why
wasn't that done?

Perhaps that is what is happening behind the scenes, but I think everybody
would feel better about this apology if they said that right up front.

~~~
joshuamorton
Note that no where did they apologize for removing her from her position.

Ultimately this was an apology for procedural failings, not their ultimate
impacts. Reinstating the removed mod would be correcting something they aren't
apologizing for.

------
swiley
Darn I might have to peel the SO sticker off the back of my MacBook.

~~~
LoSboccacc
SO has been on the decline quite long already, drowning in a sea of homework
question, fix my bugs beggars and editors running perfectly fine answers.
finding relevant solutions is as hard as ever and asking moderately difficult
questions just gets you nowhere. long standing issues, like a way to tag
library versions to avoid people ending in stale answers or restrict your area
of expertise properly as to be able to quickly network with other in the field
working on the same problem were never addressed, meanwhile we got a
disfunctional job board that did the opposite of attracting talent, resulting
instead in a horde of resume padding desperados copy pasting answer off a
script in all questions tagged java or xml

the moment to remove that sticker was c.a 2013

------
m0zg
This is so dumb. Just disallow people to use real names and switch to aliases
completely. Voila! Nobody needs to know or worry about anyone's genders or
pronouns. It's a tech forum, nobody should give a shit about your gender or
lack thereof.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's not how it works. Some people will _volunteer_ this information anyway,
and then either them or someone else on their behalf will raise a stink about
how the information is being ignored.

~~~
m0zg
Well, ban those people then. Problem solved. They're clearly on the site to
cause trouble.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That would mean a pretty draconian anonymity policy. Haven't seen that
anywhere yet. But beyond that, you start banning people for revealing gender
pronouns, you risk finding yourself trending on Twitter for sexual
discrimination and transphobia - after all, you've been banning people for
revealing their gender pronouns, which will be shortened to "for their gender
pronouns"...

~~~
m0zg
I see what you're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the
terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site is
used in accordance with the terms.

I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn't care less about pronouns one way or
the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In fact
I'd prefer it that way.

And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It's not like people would stop using SO just
because a few activists shit on it on Twitter.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I see what you 're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the
> terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site
> is used in accordance with the terms._

It doesn't _have_ to be actual discrimination; half the time the mob is
screaming "discrimination" there isn't any. There are issues you aren't
supposed to touch unless you're willing to defend yourself from people who
care about winning, and not at all about truth or accurate accusations.

> _I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn 't care less about pronouns one way
> or the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In
> fact I'd prefer it that way._

You may not care, I may not care, but enough people at important enough places
care enough for this to explode into a shitstorm, as you can see in front of
you right now.

> _And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It 's not like people would stop using SO
> just because a few activists shit on it on Twitter._

If you're the site _owner_ , you may care, because behind few activists on
Twitter there comes a mob, and behind a Twitter mob come the journalists. This
story has been repeating itself over and over for almost a decade now.

------
d23
Not sure if it's been covered, but I started getting spam emails from them for
the first time too.

~~~
shkkmo
This response covers some additional issues people would like to see
addressed, but does not mention that complaint.

[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573)

------
anjc
> First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they
> couldn’t participate authentically

> thank you for acknowledging that. I will be able to sleep in peace tonight
> knowing that I have still a place here

If users were genuinely unable to sleep because one random faceless person
asked if they could continue their practice of only using gender neutral
pronouns, then this seems to be a situation in which you shouldn't apologise
to them, because they'll never be satisfied. It must be a nightmare being
assigned to a CoC project now.

------
kangnkodos
In legal cases, it often happens that the first person to be accused of
violating a new regulation often gets a slap on the wrist.

For example, if a brand new tax regulation is vague, the first person accused
of violating that regulation has a drastically reduced penalty, or just a
warning. Along with that, the judge writes a clarification so there can be no
mistakes the next time. The clarification sends a clear message to the
community that the next person accused will not get a break.

Perhaps, based on third or fourth party accounts, Monica was repeatedly asked
to use specific pronouns in a moderators-only chat. If that is true, she may
have driven one or more moderators away from participating there, and violated
the existing CoC.

However, even if all those accusations against Monica are true, since there is
no established procedure for removing a moderator, it would seem that the
"judge(s)" in the new process to remove or re-instate Monica could walk a very
fine line. The judge(s) could declare Monica guilty of those offenses, but
give her a lenient sentence. Perhaps re-instated, but under probation or
double-secret-probation.

I hope David Fullerton and his coworkers have the wisdom to consider this
course of action.

------
diminoten
I am still not clear on whether or not avoidance of pronoun use is allowed on
SE...

~~~
jcims
What do you mean by 'avoidance of pronoun use'...avoiding them entirely or
ignoring some kind of signal about what pronoun a specific person associates
with?

~~~
diminoten
How would refusing to use requested pronouns be avoiding? In what way could
what I said be interpreted to mean refusal?

It's not clear if speaking in passive voice will be acceptable on SE come
October 10th.

~~~
jcims
Sorry I just don't know what your original comment meant and was trying to
understand it better.

~~~
diminoten
Honestly, I think you do.

~~~
jcims
Hey if you're on the front lines of all this i get not taking what i'm saying
at face value, but for what it's worth i am just trying to understand.

I _think_ you're asking if submissions to SE will (or will not) be permitted
to dodge the identity issue by writing in a way that avoids pronouns.

This just seems so over the top to me that it's hard to believe, which is why
I also included another option. I wouldn't call it 'refusing' as much as 'not
bothering to do the legwork for every party you refer to in your content'.
Which is, of course, also onerous but possibly a bit less so.

~~~
diminoten
What's over the top about writing in passive voice?

~~~
jcims
Hey I appreciate you hanging in there but i think we’re on two different
wavelengths and aren’t communicating well. I don’t know what passive voice has
to do with avoiding pronouns, you can write active and passive with and
without. But let’s call it even its been a long day. Take care.

~~~
diminoten
It's easier to write without pronouns in passive voice. "The ball was kicked"
vs. "he kicked the ball".

And no, I'd rather not call it even, not after you slip in with a, "you're
wrong but I don't want to talk about it, bye!"

------
kelvin0
Not sure I understand what happened and who why people were offended. If
there's wrongdoing by SO, what does this have to do with a holiday(jewish or
other)?

Thanks for clarifications and filling in the gaps for me.

~~~
protomyth
She is Jewish. They canned her at 6pm EST on a Friday then were a bit flippant
about it using the no-class phrase _We learned (or were painfully reminded,
rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday_ in a previous update. It was
also before a Jewish holiday.

This is not the way to treat people, but, if you think cynically, is an
excellent way to make sure you have time before the person fired can make a
proper response depending on how they practice.

~~~
magicalhippo
To clarify further, they removed her moderator privileges but didn't actually
tell her.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is)

------
wruza
I read this thread, read topvoted links to meta and still not sure if I get
what’s happening.

Is it that ‘they’ does not count as a neutral addressing anymore? If yes,
what’s the solution?

~~~
newsgremlin
I feel like I've wasted my time reading into this controversy for how absurd
it sounds unless I'm missing some other crucial information.

From what I've gathered from the various references, a mod questioned if the
use of gender neutral pronouns such as "they" would be acceptable in response
to new rules being announced to moderators that the persons specified pronouns
should be used. Despite the fact these rules were not even implemented
officially, the mod was terminated immediately.

Now what we see here is them backtracking, but I don't believe they have
reinstated the mod. So I don't believe they think are truly remorseful and
have realized they overstepped the mark.

~~~
MauranKilom
It's kind of the reverse: The mod in question adamantly refused singular
"they" in particular, not for religious or transphobic but rather stylistic
reasons (from what I could find). But that's hours of chat and months of
context boiled down into one third-hand sentence.

SE has not said whether this in particular was the cause for the firing, but
it seems evident. Regardless, there is no indication that SE intends to undo
the firing.

~~~
e12e
Thank you for summing up.

What I still don't quite get is: did the mod reject singular they a) when
preference was unknown (ie: prefer to rewrite), b) reject singular they, when
preferred (someone not identifying as male/female), c) Choose the conventional
"he" over singular they when preference was unknown?k8s

From what I've read it's a) - and it's pretty hard for me to imagine a
scenario in which that seems like a good reason to drop a moderator.

Also, is this a volunteer being kicked, or is it some kind of paid position?

Ed: from tfa: "Second, we hurt a longstanding member of the community and an
important volunteer moderator." So I guess that answers my last question.

~~~
MauranKilom
From what I can tell it's a) _and_ b). Side-stepping the issue by avoiding
pronouns or disengaging altogether was suggested by the moderator but
dismissed as not an option because similarly hurtful in (perceived?) intent.

------
AzzieElbab
will this be followed by an apology for being rushed and shallow or will the
new CoCs take care of the nonsense known as nuanced thinking?

------
cryptonector
Whatever else anyone thinks of this brouhaha, I'd say that this answer is
extremely useful:
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294)

------
goatinaboat
_Stack Overflow is just beginning this new stage in its growth_

Growth? Well that’s optimistic.

------
mlang23
Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent
that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally
joined for the technical aspect, which felt like a byproduct at the time I
left again. And I _am_ a member of a fringe group. But I would never ever
behave like most SJWs seem to do these days. And now downvote me, for not
agreeing with the underpriviledged.

~~~
jmull
The problem with focusing on the behavior of certain SJWs is it ignores — and
lets stand —the actual underlying issues.

If you want to solve any problems you need to move past getting baited or
triggered by each provocative statement and engage the underlying issues.

~~~
ethbro
The problem (as I see it, and agree with gp's formulation) is of communities
failing to police their own by using double-standards.

One set for "us", one set for "them."

It's okay for one of "us" to be rude, aggressive, or argue outside of good
faith. Because it's in service of justice.

But heaven forbid "they" do the same thing. In which case they're terrible
people, how dare they, etc.

This happens in both liberal-dominated and conservative-dominated forums.

And the solution is for each and every one of us, at all times, to call a duck
a duck. If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole. Full stop.

They should be held to the same standards as anyone else, encouraged to modify
their behavior and more closely adhere to general common decency towards other
people, or kicked out of their role within the organization.

Because, ultimately, they're a cancer. It's just a question of how long before
it metastasizes. And idealogical purity is no balm for failing to be a good
person.

PS: Which isn't to say that one can't pursue just causes. Just make sure your
own house is in order before throwing rocks.

~~~
MauranKilom
This is really tricky, because sincere and respectful words by one party can
still be perceived as hurtful by another. Especially in this issue, there is
frequently no middle ground where both parties are happy.

I mean, it's kind of ironic: Calling someone an asshole is undoubtedly rude
and aggressive (even when done in good faith). And you said that it's not only
ok but necessary when you perceive someone as an asshole. But above you
complained exactly about "being rude/aggressive in service of justice". So...
which is it?

~~~
ethbro
Forest, trees. You should call _both_ conservative and liberal assholes
assholes.

~~~
MauranKilom
I did not mean this in the sense of political parties but parties on different
"sides" of the pronoun issue at hand.

~~~
ethbro
I feel it extends the same way. Allegiance is not... politeness and decency.

------
wendyshu
Summary:

* contrition

* the moderator dismissal was too hasty

* they will create a process for reinstating moderators

* new Code of Conduct announced Oct 11

------
blondin
i mean... most people are already on the moderator side, but she might need to
take it slow too. i might be reading all this wrong but she is coming off as
the side that is slightly aggressive to me. she's been going at every single
post they make or people on these post.

i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this
wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _i mean, that wasn 't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all
> this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything._

From what I've gathered, there seems to be additional angle here in which SE
talked to the press, apparently using her real name and telling falsehoods
about her, and now her name is attached to a slanderous story. This means for
her it's no longer about a volunteer position at a tech company, but about her
entire life.

EDIT: here's the article in question:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_controversy/).

------
mathattack
Seems like now is the time for the new CEO to make themself public.

------
lacampbell
Does anyone else remember the days before the tech community became filled
with all these CoC writers?

~~~
jimws
Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow
automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people.
If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or
community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM. There are more civil ways to
send the same message. CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse.
Do you have a better idea?

~~~
serf
>Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow
automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people.
If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or
community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM.

Two things.

1) 'RTFM' isn't as rude as expecting to be hand-fed. That's the grace in the
statement, it's meant to be used as a retort to the expectation that the
person being asked the question even has the time to entertain the notion of
training someone, given that the manual is available and ready for
consumption.

It's (supposed) to speak to the laziness of the person asking the question.

Personally, I think a lot of 'RTFM's that got thrown around have historically
lead to the person asking the original question to become a lot more
knowledgable on the subject than had a simple answer. I know that I learned
that way.

2) I don't have a lot of faith that the politeness that many CoCs enforce got
rid of 'RTFM', it just shifted it to "Hi User! Have you tried scouring our
extensive question-base for that frequently asked question?" , and that kind
of unnecessary glad-handed wordiness irks me as an individual.

~~~
root_axis
An effective CoC simply outlines a community definition for abuse. The use of
"glad-handed wordiness" is unnecessary, a simple "please read the docs" would
likely suffice.

------
ivalm
I feel without a head to roll this is a little too little too late.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
This is the kind of attitude that got them into this mess in the first place.

------
tus88
I used to participate in SO but it is really turning into a hit n run site for
me now. Overzealous duplicate and notconstructive flags combined with the
dumbing everything down for new users policy made it frustrating and
unrewarding experience. It still is to be frank when the "answer matches
actual question in title" rate is about 10%, but what else is there?

~~~
mhuffman
> Overzealous duplicate

This one is really killing me lately.

In almost all cases it points to something only tangentially related and is of
no help.

SO used to be a place that smart people could go to get other smart people to
help them with a problem.

Now it mostly seems to be a place where people help students with their high-
school CS homework and then bitch about not being there to help with homework!

Quora is even worse!

I am eagerly waiting for whoever comes up with the next reasonable knowledge-
sharing site to leave these two POS sites where they belong!

~~~
wodenokoto
With great fear of this, I opened a question on SO a while ago and at the
bottom linked to several other SO questions under the heading "similar but
different, because ...", and it went quite well, although moderation was quite
angry that I didn't choose an accepted answer within a day.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
> _although moderation was quite angry that I didn 't choose an accepted
> answer within a day._

I don't know about Stack Overflow, which is the largest SE site, and may have
some cultural differences.

But I'm pretty sure that accepting an answer within a day is _strongly
discouraged_ on all Stack Exchange sites in general. You should wait, at least
one day before accepting it - some users may still want to answer it. I only
accept answers when nobody posts new answers. Also, a user doesn't have to
accept an answer, if none of the answer is helpful for solving the question -
it has been discussed on Meta before.

Personally, if I asked a question and none of the answer solves the question,
I'll accept the most helpful one. If none is helpful, I don't accept any
answer, and usually I will be able to answer my own question and accept myself
in the future.

------
goto11
Totally unrelated to the matter of hand, but I find it amazing that SE now
have forums like "Christianity", "Judaism" etc. where people can upvote and
downvote religious questions and answers, and select the "accepted" answer
about what Gods opinion is about this and that.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that the answers are actually Gods opinion! Just
found it fascinating that a site specifically designed for technical questions
have grown to encompass questions about what Jesus meant with a certain
phrase.

~~~
viraptor
> and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and
> that.

You're misrepresenting the idea behind those sites. The questions there don't
ask about god's option. They (usually) ask about customs, about text
interpretations, about rules of given church / denomination, about texts
relating to a given situation, and many other things. (Of course there are
some exceptions) You don't have to believe in them to respect people's choice
to engage with religion and look for a way to live their life.

For example recent questions in christianity right now: "Does the Bible
explain why God chose Israel?", "What kind of food is Jesus referring to at
Luke 22:16?", "What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the
cross and the method of crucifixion?". Those aren't even questions about
beliefs.

~~~
goto11
Current top question "Where does a baby's soul come from?". Actually I really
want to know the answer to that now!

I also like this question: "Do angels possess 1) a body, soul and spirit, 2) a
soul and spirit or 3) just a spirit?" \- it even have multiple answers. (Sadly
none of them accepted.)

------
Lazare
A bit late, but a good response, I'd say.

------
elisharobinson
from my limited understanding of the issue some dude/dude-et got thrown out of
Stack Overflow Moderators. Big deal to me stack exchange operates like a party
you both add value and get value and if you shit in puch bowl you get thrown
out. Now please let me know who shat or didnt shit in the punchbowl the
contents of the shit and does anyone even drink fruit punch !! fight !!

------
mwyah
You just have to look at the Twitter feeds of these two to see why things are
going where they are going.

[https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps](https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps)

[https://twitter.com/df07](https://twitter.com/df07)

------
trust07007707
<< we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn’t
participate authentically and we didn’t respond quickly or strongly enough in
supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a
target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and
be addressed according to how they identify.

I am responsible for that, and I am deeply sorry. We absolutely support the
LGBTQ+ community. >>

GPT-2 could have written a better and more genuine apology.

First of all, you don't just use the new PR formula of naming the wrong,
saying you take responsibility and then saying you're sorry. You need to dig
deep and identify why you committed the wrong in the first place (homophobia,
sexism, mean heartedness?) and commit to therapy and reforming.

Seriously.

