Timeline for Update: an agreement with Monica Cellio
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 29, 2019 at 15:18 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | @Mithical: I understand and respect your decision not to reveal more detail. So where does that leave the rest of us? We do have some context, from both Monica and a staff member who goes by the username Sara Chipps. I'm drawing my inferences from that context, and I acknowledge that "inference" is just a fancy name for "guess". | |
| Dec 29, 2019 at 14:50 | comment | added | Mithical | @JamesReinstateMonicaPolk - I will not, both because everything happened in private and so I won't air it in public and because I no longer have access to the transcripts and records. It's certainly not a black-and-white situation, and I don't blame someone if they don't want to take my word for it, because I'm not giving out information. I will say that most people are operating without context, though, and that everything was mishandled from the start by everybody. | |
| Dec 29, 2019 at 13:50 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | @Mithical: I completely reject the "trust me --- I was there argument", and frankly I'm tired of it. Unfortunately, people tend to agree with trashing a person rights if that person is merely suspected of holding the wrong opinions. If you can't or won't explain what happened in that room then I give you no credit for being there. | |
| Dec 28, 2019 at 17:18 | comment | added | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | @Mithical I'm not a moderator and obviously wasn't there, but it was never clear (even to Monica) exactly what she was fired for (and SE persistently refused to give any more details beyond "trust us, we're doing the right thing," even when Monica and the community asked for it). Based on my knowledge of Monica, I seriously doubt that there was any malicious intent on her part. Plus, the new Code of Conduct evidently permits what she was asking to be allowed to do, so it's even less clear what part of the new CoC she violated. | |
| Dec 28, 2019 at 17:13 | comment | added | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | @MiFreidgeimSO-stopbeingevil Admittedly, SE has a rather poor record of constructive dialog (especially given their lack of responsiveness to feedback and questions from the community about Monica's firing in the first place). With that said, at least this update is something (even if it's not everything we want). I think that it's important that we encourage them to at least give us information (rather than just complain bitterly whether they do or don't). | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 22:41 | comment | added | Michael Freidgeim | You answer is similar to others, created earlier. Also your hope for a dialog does sound naive. | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 17:13 | comment | added | Steerpike | @Mithical - no one can argue against other factors that remain private. But since the lack of reinstatement is itself an implied defamation, I'm surprised they didn't take that route. Requiring her to go through the process is implied guilt. So by accepting, Monica is acknowledging guilt, which means, this isn't really clearing her name. Curious - do we know what Monica does as a 'day job'? If she's secure in her current job, not a huge concern about economic damage caused by this event. | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 7:23 | comment | added | Mithical | The dismissal was never the largest problem. Speaking as someone who was there, it makes perfect sense to me that Monica would have to go through the reinstatement process, because the dismissal was not a black-and-white situation. The lawsuit and the big issue was about the defamation. There is still other context (still in private, not leaked AFAIK) relevant to the dismissal, and expecting SE to just reinstate Monica without question is not a reasonable thing to expect and shouldn't be expected. | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 5:52 | history | answered | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |