Thank you for this heartfelt, encouraging message, and for being willing to have the conversation that preceded it instead of just walking away.

We need more of that at Stack Exchange.

It's too easy to forget that, behind the gravatar and user name, there is an actual human being. We have text-only interactions, sometimes limited to messages of a few hundred characters at a time, and we draw conclusions, think we know the other, when we don't. And then we filter all further interactions through the filter of what we "know", regardless of accuracy, and spirals happen.

That happens everywhere online (as we've known for decades). Now throw into the mix an environment where we discuss important issues that are deeply personal to those involved. What could go wrong with that, right? Currently it's pronouns, but it's also been religion (there's a lot of hostility to religion on the network), politics, national identity... topics that are challenging to discuss regardless of how respectful everyone involved is being. The current situation arose from a conversation in Teachers' Lounge that was by and large very respectful -- but involved deeply-held feelings that were in conflict.

If we can't even manage respectful private conversations without over-reactions, then how are we to deal with disrespectful public actions on the network? We've seen far too much trolling, far too many attacks, far too much pain. Our collective inability to recognize the humanity in our fellow moderators has emboldened those who cannot see the humanity in fellow users. It has added hurt, in particular, to the hurt already being felt by members of the Lavender community.

Heather, I regret that we had these failures of communication in Teachers' Lounge. It was nobody's intention to offend and yet people were offended. I believe we both are now doing better at listening and weighing the impact of our words, and I hope others will join us in trying to rise above the quick reaction, will try harder to see the human being behind the screen.

The network writ large, and the 600 or so moderators who care for it, are global, diverse communities. Diversity means sometimes encountering perspectives we disagree with, that we might even find deeply wrong or heretical. I experience this on our religion sites, and yet we manage to work together there -- by being respectful in how we present our perspectives, by being ready to listen, and by knowing that we're still all here for the same reason. If any of us were to be able to shut down the perspectives we disagree with, our communities would be poorer for it.

But some conversations are too painful, too personal, and we need to be able to say "let's not do this". We need to be able to step out instead of escalating, and we need to be able to communicate clearly that we're feeling hurt without it being seen as an attack. We need more "I feel" language and less "you did" language. This requires effort and will on both sides of the interaction. Communities of people with good intentions can solve these problems. We might need help, like mediators. We definitely need to presume good intent. But we can do it if we want to.

And we should want to. The alternative, where more and more people get hurt more and more badly, is too awful to contemplate.

Thank you for this heartfelt, encouraging message, and for being willing to have the conversation that preceded it instead of just walking away.

We need more of that at Stack Exchange.

It's too easy to forget that, behind the gravatar and user name, there is an actual human being. We have text-only interactions, sometimes limited to messages of a few hundred characters at a time, and we draw conclusions, think we know the other, when we don't. And then we filter all further interactions through the filter of what we "know", regardless of accuracy, and spirals happen.

That happens everywhere online (as we've known for decades). Now throw into the mix an environment where we discuss important issues that are deeply personal to those involved. What could go wrong with that, right? Currently it's pronouns, but it's also been religion (there's a lot of hostility to religion on the network), politics, national identity... topics that are challenging to discuss regardless of how respectful everyone involved is being. The current situation arose from a conversation in Teachers' Lounge that was by and large very respectful -- but involved deeply-held feelings that were in conflict.

If we can't even manage respectful private conversations without over-reactions, then how are we to deal with disrespectful public actions on the network? We've seen far too much trolling, far too many attacks, far too much pain. Our collective inability to recognize the humanity in our fellow moderators has emboldened those who cannot see the humanity in fellow users. It has added hurt, in particular, to the hurt already being felt by members of the Lavender community.

Heather, I regret that we had these failures of communication in Teachers' Lounge. It wasn't my intention to offend, and yet some were offended. I assume that those who offended me with their words also didn't intend to offend, and perhaps they will address that just as you and I did. I believe we both are now doing better at listening and weighing the impact of our words, and I hope others will join us in trying to rise above the quick reaction, will try harder to see the human being behind the screen.

The network writ large, and the 600 or so moderators who care for it, are global, diverse communities. Diversity means sometimes encountering perspectives we disagree with, that we might even find deeply wrong or heretical. I experience this on our religion sites, and yet we manage to work together there -- by being respectful in how we present our perspectives, by being ready to listen, and by knowing that we're still all here for the same reason. If any of us were to be able to shut down the perspectives we disagree with, our communities would be poorer for it.

But some conversations are too painful, too personal, and we need to be able to say "let's not do this". We need to be able to step out instead of escalating, and we need to be able to communicate clearly that we're feeling hurt without it being seen as an attack. We need more "I feel" language and less "you did" language. This requires effort and will on both sides of the interaction. Communities of people with good intentions can solve these problems. We might need help, like mediators. We definitely need to presume good intent. But we can do it if we want to.

And we should want to. The alternative, where more and more people get hurt more and more badly, is too awful to contemplate.