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...
A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
211–220 of 333 posts
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#212Reading 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?
> 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…
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...
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are cases where there isn't an answer. A common one I come across is people trying to track who's online/offline with window.onbeforeunload. The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this". A good answer mentions the alternatives - storing the user's last activity and considering them logged out after X minutes, using websockets for a presence channel, etc. I see no reason to avoid…
> The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this". Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?" In every other case, that should be a disclaimer on top of an answer to the actual question. Maybe future users don't need 100% reliability for some reason. Maybe they're just trying to find out if something like onbeforeunload even exists. Sure, sh…
> Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?"
We're gonna have to disagree on this.
That's like me asking "how do I get to this restaurant", and you give me directions to the place that burned down a year ago without mentioning that. Useless, and infuriating when I drive a half hour to discover it.
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#214The old system, whatever it was, incentivized bad mod behavior and ruined the experience.
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone who is active in a community and has high confidence by the community (= high points), it is more likely that this person is capable of moderating this community better than someone who is not familiar with the subjects of the community.
> has high confidence by the community Could just be that you've gamed the system.
I have 50,000+ points on Stack Overflow. Could be that I gamed the system, yes, but that would mean the system is rotten to the core. If that is the case, why are people so emotional about it?
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answer is always "that's not reliable, you can't really use it for this". Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?" In every other case, that should be a disclaimer on top of an answer to the actual question. Maybe future users don't need 100% reliability for some reason. Maybe they're just trying to find out if something like onbeforeunload even exists. Sure, sh…
> Only if the question is "Is window.onbeforeunload reliable to track online/offline users?" We're gonna have to disagree on this. That's like me asking "how do I get to this restaurant", and you give me directions to the place that burned down a year ago without mentioning that. Useless, and infuriating when I drive a half hour to discover it.
I know it's impolite to say that here, but if you actually read the rest of my reply, you'd see that in my opinion the best answer for a Q&A site would be "The restaurant burned a year ago, but it was at 450, Blahblah street". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough before, but I am saying it now.
Consider that the asker might just using the restaurant as a reference to some other place. Or someone "hearing" the answer in the future wanted to know the address to visit the ruins. The information might still be useful. Consider that you might not always know better.
If this were a chatroom or forum, fine, answer informally. But we're talking in the context of a Q&A webiste.
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#217Do 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.
Atwood has not worked there since 2012 and has no say in the day-to-day operations: https://blog.codinghorror.com/what-does-stack-overflow-want-...
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#218Without studying it thoroughly I would comment: Great, finally!
Moderator abuse was the biggest problem on SO, without any oversight.
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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...
> 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.
Re: A large number of Stack Exchange mods resigning over new policies
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Aren't you ignoring your own advice by supporting the dismissal of a moderator before the policy they supposedly might break is even in effect? It seems like SE got rid of a mod because they voiced concerns about an upcoming rule change... comparing that to assaulting someone is a cheap shot.
They're not in support; they're reserving their judgment, staying neutral.
They did the comparison only to show how goatinaboat's appeal to trust is a logical fallacy. Before coming to a judgment, one should take the facts at hand, instead of relying solely on the trust you have of the people involved like goatinaboat did.
In this case, many details cannot be seen, so it's not proper to decide on a judgment solely on the fact that we trust Monica.