Do we have a problem with hostile moderator resignation posts?

Question

In a recent answer, Juan M ♦ mentioned that:

Lately, we have had an increase of resignation posts that have served to host combative and hurtful words to attack Stack employees, other mods, and teammates.

As an explanation for why moderator resignation posts:

will be featured for around 24 hours moving forward

but not deleted.

Several of the moderator resignation posts that I have seen contain strong messages that the resigning moderators in question no longer feel comfortable with Stack Exchange policies and/or culture, but I can't recall ever seeing one that has crossed the line from ordinary criticism to fighting words.

How often does hurtful speech actually appear in moderator resignation notices? Can anyone give any specific examples of moderator resignation notices that are sufficiently "combative and hurtful" to warrant removal of featured status but that are not immediately red-flaggable as violations of the Code of Conduct?

Answer 1

I think there is a certain amount of ambiguity here:

Lately, we have had an increase of resignation posts that have served to host combative and hurtful words to attack Stack employees, other mods, and teammates.

That can mean two things:

• the resignation notes themselves are hurtful
• the resignation posts attract hurtful comments and answers

So to answer the question at hand, I think:

• I have not seen a single resignation note that was rude, or directly attacking specific people
• But sure, I have seen plenty of answers/comments coming in on such resignation notes later on, that could be seen as hurtful

Coming from there, Juan M. has a point.

But as I implied on his post: I think they are putting their energy in the wrong place. You don't cut down the number of negative posts by reducing visibility.

You cut down negativity by reducing the reasons that create and accumulate negative sentiment, which then, at some point, manifests itself in hurtful posts.

And this was painfully obvious: around the end of 2019, things started to calm down. No more resignation notes, much lower view counts around here, much less posts by upset community members. Then: without any announcement, or reasonable explanation, shog9 and Robert getting fired.

Deja va, the suspended perfect storm resumes almost immediately. What. A. Surprise.

Answer 2

The posts aren't the problem. They're a symptom

We don't have a problem with the posts. That's just a symptom of a much more serious problem, which is manifesting in posts all over the network.

This shouldn't be news to anyone, but we've got a serious communication problem between the Stack Exchange company, and the community.

Blaming the community, calling them toxic, and trying to sweep everything under the carpet is not the way to fix the problem. As we've seen, that approach isn't working and is only causing further problems.

The only way to properly move forward, is to start mending bridges. Re-invest in communicating openly and honestly with the community. Genuine human interaction is what's needed. Do away with the impersonal canned statements; they don't work.

Take feedback in your stride, truly internalise it, and vow to improve. It can be painful to listen to feedback, especially when you don't want to, but you'll never become better if you don't.

Take a look at Jeff and Joel's playbook from the early days of Stack Overflow. They did a lot of good stuff, and there are lessons from those days that need to be re-learned.

Answer 3

I may have missed something, but personally I've never seen this. Overall, even if this is happening, I don't entirely follow the reasoning in the linked answer.

If there are hostile answers and comments, the proper thing to do is to edit and/or delete them. Same thing with hostile questions.

The claim that the posts are hostile makes little sense. According to the rules set forth in the linked answer, these (supposedly) hostile posts will still be featured publicly for 24 hours. If these posts are legitimately rude/abusive, they should be promptly edited or removed entirely (not featured for 24 hours for everyone to see). Why would a legitimately abusive post be tolerated at all (far less featured for 24 hours)?

Also, why require all resignation posts to be unfeatured after 24 hours because some of them are seen as hostile?

Answer 4

It is my opinion that if the company feels the community is being "hurtful" and "combative", they should have an open, honest conversation with the community. Instead we are asked to be silent and wait.

Here is a post which lists the resignations that happened during the Monicagate. If you go through that list, you will find things like the excerpts below:

I am stepping down as a moderator, and you deserve to know why. I cannot condone actions that the company has recently taken (behind close doors, although I expect more will become public soon).
-Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'

And

I have come to the conclusion that I, at present, cannot in good conscience remain an active community moderator on the Stack Exchange network.
- A CVn

And

I didn't make this decision lightly, frivolously or suddenly. A persistent pattern of corporate missteps, and a monumentally deplorable moderator dismissal, has compelled me to re-evaluate my relationship with Stack Exchange.
- Robert Harvey

And these are just some random samples. I find that dubbing them "combative" is debatable, but if SE says they are hurtful, then they should meditate on why these things hurt.

Answer 5

My first reaction to the staff person's claim that there have been posts with "combative and hurtful words to attack Stack employees, other mods, and teammates" was

No way! You're projecting!

But then I read a post that contained the following:

By trying to censor these posts, [staff member's] actions have created a veritable firestorm....

[Staff member] has disrespected, in particular, Madara himself, but also the rest of the community who has tirelessly built, nurtured, and advocated for these sites over the past decade.

Sadly, the post mentioned the staff member's name half a dozen times. It felt like a salvo against the individual person, rather than the company that had (judging by Shog9's tweets) ordered the employee to post the company policy.

Be kind to your fine-feathered friends,
'Cause that duck could be somebody's mother.
Be kind to your friends in the swamp,
Because it's dark and dreary there.

This particular staff member is relatively new.

I wrote a comment below the post, suggesting that the poor schmo was most likely posting the company line, as ordered.... Without knowing what this employee's financial situation is, who are we to judge him for following orders? After Shog9 and Robert's sudden departures, I think we can feel fairly certain that if this employee were to refuse to follow orders, he would find himself suddenly out of a job.

(Note that except for some personal attacks on Sara Chipps in the fall, this post is the first one I've seen made against an individual SE employee.)

In addition to attempting to reason with the post's author, I also flagged the post.

The result: the flag was declined; and my comment removed (silently -- as though it had never existed -- as has become the MSE moderating team's modus operandi).

I then proposed an edit, replacing the staff person's name with "staff person" or "the company." It only took a few minutes for the author to roll it back.

I believe this sort of personal attack is precisely what Shog9 asked us not to engage in.

---

I take one thing back. This employee isn't at all new. I was confusing his name with someone else's.