71–80 of 424 posts
> If we have to remove a diamond in the future we will follow a published process. Asking as a non-native English speaker. Diamond surely doesn't refer a jewel here. Is it a simile for a valuable thing (which surprises me; are moderators that valuable?) or some other figure of speech I'm unaware of?
> If we have to remove a diamond in the future we will follow a published process. Asking as a non-native English speaker. Diamond surely doesn't refer a jewel here. Is it a simile for a valuable thing (which surprises me; are moderators that valuable?) or some other figure of speech I'm unaware of?
> If we have to remove a diamond in the future we will follow a published process. Asking as a non-native English speaker. Diamond surely doesn't refer a jewel here. Is it a simile for a valuable thing (which surprises me; are moderators that valuable?) or some other figure of speech I'm unaware of?
Like you I was curious. Turns out community moderators get a small diamond symbol next to their names on StackOverflow: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/75192
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't know someone's gender or preferred pronouns, it's reasonable to use "they/them". If someone has explicitly asked you to use "she/her", and you exclusively use "they/them", you are still not using that person's preferred pronouns .
I don't disagree on the facts, but neither was there a rule (yet) that says you have to, nor has she done that. She has asked whether it would be against the future CoC not to. No comparison is perfect, but it feels similar to me asking a cop whether it's going to be illegal to do X under the new law that is being discussed, and them arresting and charging me for doing X. Neither is X currently outlawed, nor have I c…
They claim she repeatedly refused to change CoC violations, she claims she was just asking about using gender neutral language.
It seems to me that there were likely several misunderstandings that lead to increasingly heated discussion and then the SE staff decided to remove a moderator without following their own established process for doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like a correct observation to me. A nothing / false apology that seems to serve little other than to kick the hornet's nest. I'm curious, how do you see it?
Ya...that was a joke. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is the classic apology-free use of the word "sorry". It means "I pity you for your plight" rather than "I recognize my mistake".
Perhaps the most striking thing here is the surety of all these responses, it’s all nefarious, lies, sleight of hand. I can at least sympathize with not being told what you did wrong, but this is still a he-said-she-said case. Until either SE or Monica releases details, the only two people who know are SE and her.
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/151606/handling-cal...
When did the US start weaponizing pronouns? From a European standpoint this all seems extreme to the point of absurdity.
If one is aware of how someone prefers to be called and the preference is completely reasonable (such as a trans individual preferring their transitioned pronoun), then one is simply being an asshole by refusing. Not only that, they are doing so to a group that has historically been treated terribly by most of society -- essentially kicking someone while they are down.
Innocent mistakes are one thing, but stubborn refusal to treat someone decently is inexcusable.
P.S. I understand a very small number of vocal individuals may take things past requests for treating people decently, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
is there a summary of events that occurred? There's lots of confusing accounts and it's impossible to piece together the facts.
It's a bit confusing because a mod was removed, and a bunch of other mods resigned in support, and then it came out that she'd been removed for refusing to use people's preferred pronouns. Stack Exchange is perceived by many people to be unwelcoming. There has been persistent concern that SE is even more unwelcoming to people with protected characteristics. SE have made considerable effort to fix this. Recently they'…
There was a thread on this earlier today too, but it fell off the main page really quickly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770
That one got both a software penalty (flamewar detector) and a moderator penalty (similar). But there have been so many submissions about this that it seems there's a community interest in discussing it that is more than just latest-routine-outrage. So we rolled back the clock on this one and put it in the second-chance pool (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 ). Not sure if that was a good id…
I believe this is an important issue. Regardless of whether SO is right or not, they do owe their community (of which I am not a part of) an explanation. Unlike the Google's gender controversy, SO is mostly operated by unpaid volunteers. If you are a paid worker, your share of responsibility and the expectation from/to your company is very different from community driven projects such as SO.
tl:dr SO needs to be held to a higher standard than your usual commercial companies.