Moderation Strike update: Data dumps, choosing representatives, GPT data, and where we’re holding

Question

Update

On August 2nd, 2023, negotiations between community representatives and representatives of the company concluded with an agreement being reached. The details of the agreement can be found at Moderation strike: Results of negotiations.

On August 7th, 2023, based on the result of several polls held by various sections of the community, the coordinated call to strike concluded. Further details can be found at Moderation strike: Conclusion and the way forward.

---

Introduction

Since our strike announcement, a number of new developments have occurred. Philippe, VP of Community, posted data they have regarding GPT content on the platform. Stack Exchange staff reached out to strike organizers and asked us to choose three moderator representatives for the strike. Also, a former DBA for Stack Exchange, Inc. disclosed that data dumps have been disabled. This post strives to speak on these developments from the perspective of strike participants.

Strike representatives

We have been coordinating action on our Discord server, as Stack Exchange, Inc. has instructed us in no uncertain terms that we cannot organize on their platform. Through this server, we were reached out to by employees of Stack Exchange, Inc. to designate representatives for the strike. These representatives will later meet with Stack Exchange, Inc. representatives and will negotiate on our behalf. These representatives must be moderators, as requested by the company, because some of the discussion points will involve information that is currently confidential and covered by the moderator agreement. Additionally, new data may be disclosed by SE that may not be cleared for public release, and must be protected for privacy reasons.

In order to decide the representatives, a poll was organised which ended at midnight UTC on the 11th of June. As a result of that poll, the following users will be representing us in discussions with Stack Exchange, Inc.:

    

The full, anonymized results of the voting can be seen here.

The Data Dumps

A former database administrator (DBA) for the company has disclosed that Stack Exchange, Inc. quietly disabled the data dumps in March 2023, with a note that they should only be re-enabled with approval from senior leadership. Shortly after, the CTO, Jody Bailey, confirmed this to be the case, citing the need to “protect Stack Overflow data from being misused by companies building LLMs” and the dump has been stopped until “guardrails” are in place.

The Stack Exchange data dumps have been in place since 2009 and have been used to make network data available in an alternative format that allows people to take advantage of the open CC BY-SA license.

Disabling the data dumps in this manner is yet another example of poor communication with the very community of contributors who is at the heart of the network. The data dumps were turned off for several months, with no advance warning or communication until a user asked about it. And, even then, the company's decision was only revealed by a whistleblower, who effectively forced the CTO's hand to confirm it.

Perhaps more importantly, the data dumps serve to emphasize the very reason for the existence of the platform: Guaranteed, free access to a repository of knowledge. The network was founded to be an alternative to a paywalled platform and to guarantee that information was freely distributed. The data dumps were an insurance that no matter what happened with the company in the future, the information shared on the platform would always be freely accessible to all. Disabling these dumps is a betrayal of the founding philosophy of the network.

It would be hard to put it better than one of the site's founders, Joel Spolsky, did, when speaking on the Stack Overflow podcast #84:

We created Stack Overflow to be against [expropriation of community content]. If there's anything that's more in the DNA of Stack Overflow than that, I don't know what it is. That's one of our most core things. You can see this all over the place in the design of Stack Overflow.

First of all, from day one, we use the CC-wiki license. And it's basically a license, it says that we don't own the content that's on there, which is why we make those database dumps that are available.

Because we wanted to make sure that if no matter what happens, literally no matter who we sell to, or raise money from, or turn the site over to, and even if they take Stack Overflow, and make it an evil site where you have to pay to look at things and there's pop-up ads and pop-under ads, and you know, dancing chariots of fire that cross the screen and punch the monkey, and, man, I can take so many evil things anyway. And it just becomes a big gigantic spam site.

Doesn't matter because just take the latest CC-wiki download that we provided and go start your own site saying, you know what, this is gonna be the clean version. And I think a lot of people will follow you. We very, very deliberately built Stack Overflow in a way that there wouldn't be any chance of locking and we're pretty much doing the same thing with Stack Exchange.

Beyond promoting openness, in the spirit of the CC BY-SA license, and serving as the final bulwark of the community and its contributors against a company that ever turns "evil", the data dumps were also key to innovative uses of Stack Overflow's knowledge base in environments like prisons and Arctic research labs, where no Internet connection is available to access the live site. You can read more about these initiatives, called the "Overflow Offline" Project, on the Stack Overflow Blog and in a Verge article by Mitchell Clark.

The impact so far

Stack Exchange, Inc. has claimed in a statement to the press that 11% of Stack Exchange moderators are participating in this strike. We would like to clarify that, while this was technically an accurate statement at the time that it was made, it was, even then, a misrepresentation of the actual percentage of moderator workload that had gone on strike (the moderators and flaggers who had gone on strike and suspended their activity were drawn disproportionately from those who were actively raising and handling flags). Therefore, this cited number failed to put the strike's effects into their proper perspective.

On Monday, June 5th, the notice about the strike was posted to Meta Stack Exchange, and the strike kicked into effect. The open letter, however, had been available to sign beforehand, as organization and coordination required. Some moderators signed the letter before it went "live" on June 5th (although their signatures publicly display as the 5th due to the strike not starting before then). The 11% of moderators cited is the percentage of moderators who had signed the letter before it even went live.

Currently, the vast majority of moderators on Stack Overflow have suspended their activity. The pending flag queue has grown from just over 130 pending flags prior to Stack Exchange posting the moderator-private version of the AI generated content policy to an excess of 3,000, even while many of the most active flag-raising users have also ceased raising flags.

On multiple other sites (Super User, Software Engineering, Math, Academia, etc.) the majority of—or all—site moderators are on strike.

As of the time of writing, 113 out of 538 total Stack Exchange network moderators have signed the open strike letter, a percentage of 21%, and this number continues to grow.

The GPT data analysis

Stack Exchange, Inc. has released some of the data behind their decision to override community consensus and prohibit moderators from handling AI-generated content. This data analysis has several flaws and unverifiable underlying assumptions, which have been examined in detail in the answers to that post. We do not believe that this data sufficiently backs up the perceived need to implement such a total prohibition on moderating AI-generated content, nor does it excuse the manner in which Stack Exchange, Inc. went about doing so.

One of the issues that bears specific mention is the company's focus on the accuracy of GPT detectors. This is a red herring. Although Philippe continues to characterize this as the basis of the strike to the media, moderators do not rely blindly on GPT detectors. As has been noted repeatedly, moderators have long known about and warned flaggers about the inaccuracy of these detectors. We have no objection to ceasing reliance on the detectors, since we already were not relying upon them.

To summarize points raised in just a selection of answers:

• Stack Exchange claims to have a reliable method of detecting GPT posts through draft count. This method has been called into question: it does not appear to consider ways this detection method could fail through trivial action. It also does not match reality as observed by multiple commentators. Many of the remaining conclusions depend on this method being accurate. That is, if the conclusion that GPT posts have fallen based on this detection method is inaccurate, many following conclusions are invalidated. (discussed by Mithical, Gilles, Kevin, CodeCaster, etc.)
• Methodology for handling appeals from suspended users is in question. - Moderators could have been conferred with, for example. (Ryan M, Chris)
• Multiple answers question or disprove the validity of the data and the claims drawn from it by Staff as a whole. (starball, kaya3, CodeCaster)
• Staff appeared to have identified a problem (declining user activity rates), but answers provide alternative solutions for the data displayed that staff appear to have not considered. (Bryan Krause, starball)

…and this is just a brief overview of some of the first half of the first page of responses.

Our conditions for ending the strike

In both the open letter and the Meta post, we have issued several conditions that must be met in order for the strike to end. In light of the developments mentioned above, we wanted to reiterate them here:

• The prohibition on moderating GPT content must be retracted.

  This is the immediate, first action that Stack Exchange, Inc. must take in order to begin resolving this issue. This is a non-negotiable, fundamental requirement.

• The private policy on GPT content that was issued to moderators must be revealed publicly.

  Stack Exchange, Inc. has put moderators in the untenable position of having a private policy dictating how to handle flags and moderate content that differs from the public version of this policy. The private policy must be retracted and revealed publicly so that the public knows what restrictions moderators were placed under.

• The data dumps must be re-enabled, and SEDE and API access guaranteed.

  The data dumps of Stack Exchange content serve to further the goals of free knowledge-sharing. The content posted to the Stack Exchange network was done so to further that goal and with the understanding that it would be freely distributed to anyone seeking knowledge. The data dumps safeguard that collected knowledge and must be continued.

  The Stack Exchange API and Data Explorer both serve as major parts of moderation. Userscripts, queries, bots, and others are used to find, identify, and improve content across the Stack Exchange network. Access to these resources and the data dumps must be allowed to continue unimpeded.

• Stack Exchange, Inc. must communicate, gather feedback, and act on that feedback before making major policy or software changes to the public platform.

  Stack Exchange, Inc. has consistently made harmful changes to both policies and the software running the public platform that run counter to the knowledge-sharing goal of the network. Moving forwards, Stack Exchange, Inc. must consult with the community to gather feedback in order to safeguard the goals of the platform.

---

We continue to hope for a speedy resolution to this conflict. We look forward to Stack Exchange, Inc. taking the steps required in order for the network to return to its normal operations, focused on building and maintaining a repository of freely accessible, high-quality information in the form of questions and answers.

Answer 1

Negotiation updates are primarily posted on Discord. For those without access to Discord for any reason, here's a summary (that will be updated as the negotiations progress, though with some delay after the Discord announcements) of the progress so far (latest updates are on top):

• 2023-08-02: Negotiations concluded

• 2023-07-26: As mentioned as would be happening in the 2023-06-14 update, Stack has released the (Historical) Policy on the use of GPT Generators previously issued only to moderators. As previously covered here, and as covered in that announcement, that policy has since been superseded, and the release of this policy should not set an expectation that all or any other moderator policies will be released.

  The company also published a meta post saying they commit to maintain the data dumps and SEDE for the foreseeable future.

• 2023-07-20: The following update was posted to Discord:

  Negotiation update: Due to a combination of factors, including several people involved on both sides of the table being less available lately for varying reasons and at least one apparent miscommunication, progress has been definitely slower over the past couple of weeks. However, we have made progress.
  Some of the issues called out above as not having been resolved have now been figured out, to a certain degree, such as:

  Issue: Stack Exchange, Inc. made inappropriate comments to the press.
  Result: Apparently, the statements sent out in Philippe's name did not undergo his approval and were put together by a PR team. In light of that, Stack Exchange, Inc. will commit to having at least one member of the Community Management Team approve any press comments that involve moderation. Stack Exchange, Inc. will also commit to only speaking about moderation and mods in the most general of terms and not comment on specifics; this would, for instance, preclude comments stating that the reason that the mods were on strike is because of AI detector tools.

  Issue: There is no recourse if Stack Exchange, Inc. breaks the Moderator Agreement.
  Result: Stack Exchange, Inc. will commit to issuing an apology to Meta.SE and retracting any actions taken that were found to have broken the Agreement, as determined by a consensus of moderators. Currently, that consensus would require at least 20% of Stack Exchange network moderators to vote on whether or not the Agreement was violated, with at least 90% of respondents agreeing that it was violated. Additional tooling for this process will be developed, and these numbers aren't quite finalized.
  Both of these changes will be enshrined in the Mod Agreement and will be subejct to the standard feedback and review process for changing the Agreement.

  Issue: Stack Exchange, Inc. is still insisting on having binding, private guidance.
  Result: Stack Exchange, Inc. is apparently willing to commit to not having private binding guidance that would result in actions being taken on user accounts (such as mandating declining flags) without a public policy to back it up. This would allow for private binding policies that are only applicable in moderator spaces or do not otherwise impact non-moderator users.
  The Team for determining heuristics for AI-generated content has now been set up. Moderators and AI Domination users can find information on how to receive an invite to the Team pinned in the Teachers' Lounge and the AI Domination chatrooms.

  We are now discussing the issue of major software changes to the platform being made without the community's input, and waiting for Stack to announce some of the agreements we've reached. Once the public announcements have been made from Stack's side, we'll post an update to Meta.SE with all of the results of negotiations.

• 2023-06-26: Philippe takes over as primary negotiator on SE's side. Mithical, one of our representatives, posted a list of our demands and updates on progress (link requires Discord access to work, and being in the previously linked server):

  Demand: The prohibition on moderating GPT content must be retracted.
  Progress: We have tentatively established a broader replacement interim policy, that will allow moderators much more room to remove AI content (although not to the same extent as before). This policy will go into effect upon release, replacing the current private policy. More permanent standards will be established by a working group of moderators and users who are active in removing gen-AI content, in a private Stack Overflow for Teams instance. Information on how to be invited to the Team will be available when we move along a little further in the process.
  The replacement policy will be based on "strong" and "weak" heuristics, with guidelines on removing based on which heuristics are present. Moderator judgement calls will still be required. These standards will be open to revision as technology changes and data is gathered on identifying AI-generated content.

  Demand: The private policy on GPT content that was issued to moderators must be revealed publicly.
  Progress: Stack has agreed to release it publicly on Meta. However, it will be released with a disclaimer (as-yet unwritten) stating that they do not plan on releasing all moderator policy guidance publicly, but are doing so in this case. This disclaimer will have to be approved by reps before it's posted. This will be released after the new interim policy goes into effect.

  Demand: The data dumps must be re-enabled, and SEDE and API access guaranteed.
  Progress: We have reached the agreement below. This commitment will be announced publicly by Stack Exchange, Inc. (I don't know exactly when).
  Agreement: Stack Exchange, Inc. commits to: Continuing to operate the data dumps; continuing to provide Stack Exchange Data Explorer access; and continuing to provide API access. All of these will remain operational and free of charge for individual network users, for the foreseeable, long-term future. For companies and organizations, other terms may apply.

  Demand: Stack Exchange, Inc. must communicate, gather feedback, and act on that feedback before making major policy or software changes to the public platform.
  Progress: The representatives from Stack Exchange, Inc. have indicated that they are willing to add a stipulation that binding policy changes (i.e. anything tagged moderator-agreement-policy) go through a mandatory seven-day review period by moderators. This is not yet finalized, and we have not yet reached a conclusion on software changes.
  Stack has also indicated that toxicity in staff/mod communication is a sticking point in increasing this interaction, particularly in the Teachers' Lounge. While I disputed many of the examples that were brought, some examples were brought that did cross the line. I've handled those cases, and I will be speaking to the other Teachers' Lounge elected moderators about making sure this is addressed more consistently in the future.

  Issue: Stack Exchange, Inc.'s data analysis is flawed.
  Progress: The representatives from Stack have indicated that their experience on the network during the course of the strike has shown that their internal estimates were inaccurate, although not yet convinced that they are as inaccurate as we (the moderators and community) believe. They are not willing to retract the policy change based on that alone.

  Issue: Moderators were not spoken to by CMs when their actions were in doubt.
  Progress: Stack has stated that their internal guidance was to almost never consult with moderators about actions taken, due to a belief that moderators want to moderate and are not interested in justifying their actions to staff. We have established that the vast majority of moderators would welcome any questions about their actions and be more than willing to explain - or, even better, to train CMs in how to figure out why those actions were taken. Stack Exchange Inc. will revise their internal guidance to reflect this.

  Issue: Stack Exchange, Inc. made inappropriate comments to the press.
  Progress: We are debating this issue and have not yet reached a conclusion. Stack is so far unwilling to agree to a blanket policy of "no comment" when asked for comment on anything involving moderators; we are considering what our options are here. Stack Exchange, Inc. would like to keep open the option of commenting on general moderator actions not taken by an individual; the representatives are pushing for Stack to refrain commenting even about groups of moderators. Stack has also indicated that they think it would be unfair for the company to be bound to not comment while individual moderators are free to comment, citing my own personal statements to the press. I've reminded them that they are a billion-dollar company, while we are a group of volunteers.

  Issue: There is no recourse if Stack Exchange, Inc. breaks the Moderator Agreement.
  Progress: Frankly, there's been no progress. It was floated that a group such as the Moderator Council should have the authority to rule that an action taken by Stack Exchange, Inc. broke the Agreement, and is so rendered null and void; however, the Mod Council is currently defunct and is unlikely to be revived. We have not resolved this to any degree; suggestions are welcome.

• 2023-06-25: SE commits to continuing to operate the data dumps (and provide them free of charge), and continuing to provide free access to SEDE and the API for individual network users for the foreseeable, long-term future. Companies and organisations may get other terms.

• 2023-06-22: A CM dropped by the SO mod room to talk through GPT-related suspension appeals needing clarification.

• 2023-06-21: AI policy progression: nothing finalised, but negotiations are headed towards establishing a few baseline agreed-on heuristics, and broadening the heuristics. Data collection started to determine heuristics (in cooperation with mods and curators heavily involved in AI moderation).

• 2023-06-14: The company agreed to release the private AI policy.

  • Note that it has not been released yet, presumably pending discussions on an explanative introduction, or further progress in the strike negotiations.

    This policy has since been published. See the 2023-07-26 update above for details.

• 2023-06-13: Negotiations started; logistics and ground rules sorted.

Answer 2

One thing I'd like to add is that it is entirely SE's decision to not engage with the community on this topic right now. It was their decision to only negotiate with a few selected representatives out of the striking mods, and mostly stay silent in public.

I can understand this to some extent, it's difficult and often not particularly productive to discuss this with this many people, especially when the whole atmosphere is already pretty adversarial. And I appreciate that they published most of the data they also showed the mods, it's very useful to have that information in public.

But SE could engage with the community in public as well, especially if they were willing to roll back and rethink some parts of those changes. But they haven't moved an inch so far, despite the overwhelmingly negative reactions from the community.

Answer 3

The data dumps must be re-enabled, and SEDE and API access guaranteed.

I hope you will take a very strong line on the "guaranteed" part. This parallels what I said last time:

Nope, sorry. This just isn't good enough any more.

The handshake agreement is no longer sufficient. It has already been broken, along with whatever trust we placed in it. Going forward, regular release of data dumps should be a binding legal commitment on the company. If you all need to hire a lawyer to help with negotiating this, I am more than willing to send dollars to help.

P.S. Many thanks to all of you for continuing to represent and fight for the good of these sites.

Answer 4

Our conditions for ending the strike [...] The data dumps must be re-enabled, and SEDE and API access guaranteed.

Please add that the data dumps must continue to be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, and the access to SEDE and the API should continue to be free of charge.

Answer 5

Stack Exchange, Inc. must agree to publicly disclose the outcome of negotiations.

Significant damage has been done to the relationship between SE and its users and must acknowledge that it is not only moderators who are shocked and dismayed by these events. Those of us regular users who are suspending our participation are doing so partly out of solidarity for the moderators, but also partly because we want to know what we're contributing to.

Aside from asking and answering questions across a number of communities, voting, and commenting, I have also promoted communities like Conlang.SE Beta and Skeptics.SE and was a proponent at my company of SO for Teams, which we now use.

SE should not expect me to resume my regular activities of answering questions, voting, exercising other privileges, and promoting its communities and products if it chooses to keep the outcome of this event a secret, and I would be disappointed if the striking moderators decide to end their strike on the basis of a secret agreement (though I would not assign them the blame).

Answer 6

Our conditions for ending the strike

[...]

The data dumps must be re-enabled, and SEDE and API access guaranteed.

The data dumps of Stack Exchange content serve to further the goals of free knowledge-sharing. The content posted to the Stack Exchange network was done so to further that goal and with the understanding that it would be freely distributed to anyone seeking knowledge. The data dumps safeguard that collected knowledge and must be continued.

The Stack Exchange API and Data Explorer both serve as major parts of moderation. Userscripts, queries, bots, and others are used to find, identify, and improve content across the Stack Exchange network. Access to these resources and the data dumps must be allowed to continue unimpeded.

Stack Exchange, Inc. must communicate, gather feedback, and act on that feedback before making major policy or software changes to the public platform.

Stack Exchange, Inc. has consistently made harmful changes to both policies and the software running the public platform that run counter to the knowledge-sharing goal of the network. Moving forwards, Stack Exchange, Inc. must consult with the community to gather feedback in order to safeguard the goals of the platform.

---

I see two things happening:

• As history has shown us, SO will make a whole lot of promises and commit to a whole bunch of things and they'll never follow through. But, it'll give them enough time to smooth things over so people start contributing once again until their next inevitable mess
• SO will not budge

Regarding the first demand, SO has potentially found a way to further monetize our contributions probably in a massive way as AI is currently the "new thing".

I really can't see them reversing this.

As for the second, fundamentally SO is not interested in communicating and gathering feedback from us. We're not the target audience, we're the thorn in their side that gives them bad press.

They're at the stage in the company where they believe they've exploited us enough for content to be able to kick us to the curb and continue running smoothly. They want our time and effort but not the constructive criticism.

---

If SO does come bearing gifts and empty promises I implore everyone to be more critical and reluctant to go back to business as usual. Those who are striking, have a plan to return to the strike if they start failing on these guarantees.

Don't be fooled by their words. Talk is cheap and SO has shown us that enough.

We've had too many fake apologies/guarantees made to us and then had the rug pulled from beneath us, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

What they're doing with the data dumps especially flies in the face of everything that these sites originally stood for. SO has had the stench of empty suits sacrificing this site on the altar of profits for quite some time now. It's nothing new.

With that in mind, I also hope everyone involved is ready and willing to let their respective communities decay for the greater good if things don't change - ironic, right?

---

^{I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong but history is not on SO's side.}

Answer 7

Stack Exchange, Inc. has instructed us in no uncertain terms that we cannot organize on their platform.

What does this entail? "Organising" a community response could include almost anything, including expressing opinions about what SE are doing wrong and what they should do instead, and voting on those opinions to reach a community consensus; if that's no longer allowed on Meta SE then an awful lot of posts are going to get deleted.

Can we see the full wording of what, exactly, is forbidden ─ or is this another secret rule?

Answer 8

The recent action by this company is a perfect example of how so-called "artificial intelligence" is about deskilling.

Deskilling has affected many other sectors, and now it's affecting coding. Coders won't get such good answers from bots as they would from fellow human beings who know about coding. But guess what. Most coding is part of the economy. And the economy is about profit.

Coding is a craft skill. So was printing. So was clockmaking.

"The very reason for the existence of the platform: Guaranteed, free access to a repository of knowledge."

No. It's never been anything like that. The reason for its existence is now, and always has been, PROFIT.

If I had to offer a clue, it would be this:

don't work for free for people who make profit out of your work.

There is no "community" here. That's a mirage. They let you use the tools you need to work for them, and they let you have a sense of camaraderie while you're working for them. That's all.

Answer 9

Thanks for this update. Going forward, it would be nice to have a place other than Discord for periodic status updates from the community's representatives; if Meta is not allowed, what would you suggest?

Answer 10

I would like to express my support for this strike from the perspective of a newcomer to the community. Background: I became active around two weeks ago, and am currently active in SO and CS-SE.

Before actually becoming a contributor, I have benefited from SE a lot. I was astonished by the sheer amount of high-quality content targeted to almost all possible questions. This would have never been possible without the hard work of the moderators, who regularly clean the content to keep the quality.

The influx of GPT into the community, therefore, would wreck complete havoc by increasing the amount of potentially erronous content. SE would no longer be the high-quality resource that it is now.

My interpretation of SE management's decision is that they consider the potential benefits of GPT to outweigh the potential harms. However, by doing so, it means complete disregard to the amount of work moderators would have to do to keep the quality standards.

I believe that I, like many others, would not have loved and joined SE had it been a low-quality GPT-based site. Moderation standards is what makes SE special and reliable. Hence, I would like to express my support for this strike from the perspective of a newcomer.

I urge that SE management reconsider their decision, and appreciate the moderators' efforts. After all, they are the ones who keep the community alive. No effective moderation, no Stack Exchange community. We all owe the moderators so much.

Edit: Additional rebuttal (again from newcomer perspective) to some anti-strike posts framing the issue as a clash between "new technology" (AI) and "old technology" (Human Intelligence).

This issue is unrelated to new/old technology. Most people now should understand the power of AI, and AI ethics is also a hot topic nowadays. But GPT and AI are not the core of the issues here.

Again, to us newcomers, SE as we know it is a large collaborative effort to create truly useful content. Meanwhile, AI and "new technologies" are definitely useful tools if applied correctly.

The core problem is that unregulated AI makes it much easier to flush the site with low-quality content. Therefore, discussion upon "new technologies" and "old technologies", and attempting to frame the strike supporters as luddites, is entirely unjustified.

The AI vs Human Content conflict is far from inreconcilable. If the two sides of the debate collaborate to form a constructive set of guidelines for using AI, SE would be much better than the humanpower-reliant site it used to be.

This strike, however, is a response to the ignorance of SE management to the importance of moderation and the efforts. GPT is more of the ignition fuse rather than the dynamite.

Clarification:

Thanks to TinkeringBell for pointing out the confusion. Yes, technically my account is 7 months old. However, I only started contribution 2 weeks ago. Apologies for my mistake.

Answer 11

Issue: There is no recourse if Stack Exchange, Inc. breaks the Moderator Agreement.
Progress: Frankly, there's been no progress. It was floated that a group such as the Moderator Council should have the authority to rule that an action taken by Stack Exchange, Inc. broke the Agreement, and is so rendered null and void; however, the Mod Council is currently defunct and is unlikely to be revived. We have not resolved this to any degree; suggestions are welcome.

Solution #1: Procedures.

The problem seems to be related to the process of approval and publication of the agreements. In my opinion, a consensus of at least 76% of the active moderators should be required for a deal to be approved by both the company and the moderators. Once approved, the agreement can be published without changes.

There is no point in posting something that has not been reviewed by moderators or making last-minute changes.

Solution #2: Compliance with Agreements and procedures.

Stack Exchange, Inc must publish internationally in the policies as a company that will not send agreements that have an impact on the operation of the site if it has not gone through point #1, internal company policies are patterns to follow before any court of law. The policies must be a document signed by the CEO and main executives of the company.

Observations:

Also, there is no need for a board of moderators. In my opinion, active moderators who actively contribute to the community through chats, queues, and the website are the ones who should participate. If a community manager (CM) is present, he should be able to communicate with site moderators to consistently evaluate these agreements.

Sometimes, we tend to complicate things unnecessarily. Often the simplest solution can be the correct one.

Establishing policies and procedures are the pillar of trust and guarantee of the company, collaborators and community commitment.