So disappointed to see the fall out this week

Question

I stepped down as moderator on Stack Overflow 10 days ago. There were many reasons, mainly tiredness and being time poor, if I'm to be honest with myself.

Participating on this network has always been an emotional challenge for me and I always assumed it was because of my personality. Watching things unfold I'm more inclined to think maybe it's the just interacting with people generally that's challenging.

I joined Stack Overflow 8? years ago and soon joined other Stack Exchange sites. I rallied for better behaviour on Stack Overflow Meta from early on. This is before the site split into Meta Stack Exchange and Meta Stack Overflow (MSO). I didn't like the pile on and the snark in comments in MSO. The site has come a long way in improving things in many ways, but now there seems to be challenges in how the Stack Exchange Company is communicating with its communities.

So in these ten days off Stack Overflow, I've been contacted and kept abreast of the events unfolding across the Network many times a day and actually ended up spending more time and attention on the site than I was when I was moderating.

It disappoints me to see the amount of vitriol pouring out onto the site. Emotions are high, but disappointment is not an excuse to lower the bar of our standards. It doesn't matter who or what was in the wrong. Many of us have worked hard to try and make this place more bearable for participants and now everywhere I look there's cynicism and accusations.

Honestly, I don't think the Network (being the company) sometimes handles things well. In my, not so humble opinion, they need to work on shoring up and restoring community faith. But I don't think there's any malice.

We don't have all the facts and we're not entitled to know

I look at the employees and wonder how many of them will survive this latest public outrage and in some ways I feel sorry for these people. We don't know the exact ins and out of what has gone on. We do not know who actually decided to remove diamonds or who or why the when and way of it was chosen.

There's a lot of missing pieces that none of us know and when there's a lack of trust, it's often coloured in with the worst scenarios.

All I'm saying is, it's so disappointing to see the deterioration on the site. All round. The way things have been handled by the business end and the reactions that seems to be gaining momentum.

Check your motives

There comes a point when we're posting on these sites, we need to ask. Am I doing this to achieve something good? Or am I stirring the pot? Digging up more mud?

Whatever the point. I don't believe any one moderator should be named, nor should any one employee. It's not right.

Questions like:

Will we really have "democratic" moderator elections?

This type of title is created to stir up emotions. It infers bad intentions on the part of the employees. I don't know what is going to happen, I highly doubt the employees know what they'll do just yet. It's a new thing. They may well appoint people, like they have on the Beta sites until they can hold elections. This whole reaction may cause the establishment to change how they select moderators altogether.

All I can see are a bunch of employees who don't like posting on Meta on a good day. The more emotion that is poured out here, the less likely there will be real community input. If the main impetus coming from the community is sour, if it were my business, I'd work to silence the community.

People need to ask themselves. Do they want to keep pushing at this organisation to force the very thing they don't want to see happen to really happen. Or are people willing to take a step back, take a breath and wait. Give the employees time to develop a strategy. Put into place a contingency plan.

Clearly there is a lack of trust in the employees. That's fine, no one has to trust anyone. But it does beg the question. If you are hating on the site so much, why are you rallying so hard against these people? What good do you think may come from it?

This post may be met with downvotes and not be unpopular, but the way the community is reacting all over the meta sites, makes me not want to be on these sites. It reminds me of the early meta days. When things were hot and unruly.

I'm just very disappointed to see the sites take this backward step. It doesn't matter how outraged people are, there's always at least three sides to any story. As Bs and the objective C (programming pun intended). In this type of situation there's a lot more than 3 sides and people are expecting employees to reveal a side they cannot.

A lot of people are hurting

Many people have been hurt. Many people that are not here to speak up, but were active members of these communities. People who were respected by our communities. Much of what has occurred has gone behind the scenes. Moderators and employees are bound by contracts of confidentiality. Even if you step down or leave the job, it doesn't mean you can go repeating things that were part of your job that were private. It's as much to protect users than anything else, as moderators have access to Personal Identifying Information. People are entitled to their privacy.

The sites have changed

There's a lot about these sites that has changed. They will never be the same, it's the nature of the business and the internet. All I'm asking if for some calm. If at all possible. All this hard work so many of us have lovingly put into these sites. Many of us are still here. Please don't trash the sites as you're leaving.

All this effort put into these sites and to see it degenerate this way. And before people cry "but the network doesn't respect the Code of Conduct" whatever ails you, whatever injustice you see. It doesn't justify breaking the Code of Conduct or trampling over people. Never. It never does. The employees are people too.

I'm posting this, not to cause trouble, not to argue, not to create another place for people to vent their feelings, but to have one space where people can feel, maybe someone else on here wants peace too. Maybe someone else wants calm.

I'm not even sure what I'm trying to articulate, beyond how disappointed I am in the deterioration of the site. And that behaviour is on the people writing inflamed posts and comments. Each person is responsible for their own behaviour. It's not ok to smash things as you leave the room.

Answer 1

There comes a point when we're posting on these sites, we need to ask. Am I doing this to achieve something good? Or am I stirring the pot? Digging up more mud?

Very true. But then, one can't command the storm to calm down. That will only happen when the energy levels within the system are back to a level of balance. Metaphorically speaking.

Meaning: the grudges that now (also) result in (maybe) dubiously motivated posts were accumulated over many months. And even when just 1% of the 1% of active users speaks up here or there, you still end up with a lot of content that people want to say. In the end, our contributions are our "mental" babies, and few people can easily give up the energy they invested here. We are all humans in the end.

I appreciate your words of true wisdom, and I hope many agree and follow, and restrict their input to serious contributions that advance whatever is going on here right now in a positive way. But as said elsewhere: it will not work out to press any lids on kettles whilst the pressure is too high.

Answer 2

We don't have all the facts and we're not entitled to know

I don't know if I'm entitled to know. I think I'm entitled to an explanation why the person I voted for got fired. And the post we got is a cookie cutter HR copy/paste if I ever saw one. Like an HR hallmark card. Sorry, but I may not be entitled to details, but I do feel like I should be entitled to a basic explanation. You don't fire a person and three days later cannot even issue a brief statement of fact about it.

"John Doe has violated our no-soup-on-fridays policies multiple times. He had been warned in the past but decided to violate the policy again last week. We had no other choice but to release him from his duties as a chef effective immediate."

See. Took me 20 seconds to make that up. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Where I live, being fired is a thing. You need a reason for it. You don't just trample over people by firing them without one and you don't stir up all the other people by letting them think it could happen to them too.

It infers bad intentions on the part of the employees. [...] I highly doubt the employees know what they'll do just yet.

Just a thought, but maybe they should figure that out before they fire someone? Especially someone that does not cost them a single cent while they try make a better plan. Planning 3 days ahead seems like a basic job function, even more so when the job title starts with "director". Not doing that... there can be multiple explanations and I'm no mind reader, but none of them is favorable.

The employees are people too.

I will judge people by what I see. Their words. Their actions. I have seen the moderator that was fired in many words and actions over the years, all of them fair and constructive. I have seen the person doing the firing exactly once, with unprofessional actions and formless cookie cutter words. So yes, they are persons. Entitled to not get hate mail or personal insults over an internet community and if you find either of that in my posts, I will apologize and remove it.

But they are not entitled to me staying silent when I don't like their actions.

Answer 3

We all know the original reasons for the tension, many posts are going over it, and there's no point re-iterating.

The problem that prevents the wounds from healing is the lack of leadership:

• A single post from the CTO not followed by any actual improvement on anything is not leadership.

• The assumption Stack Exchange can decide unilaterally which mods stay and which go without supervision is not leadership.

• Addressing a cultural problem with a "controversial" CoC and addendum, without putting any real resource behind it is not leadership.

• The complete lack of any intervention from either the CEO or the board is not leadership.

• Lack of interest or ability in moderating this meta is not leadership.

There's still time to fix this. The company I once knew was proud of its servant leadership attitude. Perhaps embracing servant leadership again will finally get us over this moment.

Answer 4

Usage of a site, physical or digital, carries with it the implicit assumption of the value of doing so. You hang out with friends because you like doing so. You frequent hobby groups because you enjoy the hobby, even if you don't like everyone there. You participate in sites that you think you get something out of. Whatever your reasons, you ascribe value to the actions you do.

When you're frequenting somewhere that has something you disagree with, you have to weigh the value of doing so versus the negative value of your disagreement. A friend holds political beliefs you disagree with. There's a really obnoxious and abrasive person in your hobby group you can't stand. There can also be other parts in your life that achieve higher value for you. This can lead to your self-exclusion from that environment, once the value is no longer there. It is, at it's heart, "what's in it for you?"

For some people, it's not voluntary; it's being actively driven out by actions and policies that support that exclusion. A high school clique that only wants cool kids. A hobby group that supports obnoxious users because of their skill. Other users that make your experience actively negative. It's hard to see any of this behaviour as positive, and rightly so.

---

For the network, that positive value has diminished for many users, whether that's because of the actions taken by SE, other users, or just life in general. There comes a time in...any habit, really, where you need to take a step back and ask yourself, "Is this still worth it to me?"

What's happening here is a logical extension of a community disagreeing with decisions made by higher authority. That's something that's been happening for...months. If not years. People are noticing the lack of agency and support. That's been objectively detrimental to any sort of community health.

Users are anxious, upset, and scared. Things are going on, and nobody knows where it will stop, and in some cases, what started it. The trust, the value, that users have placed in employees, or the company, has diminished greatly. Trust doesn't come cheap, and it requires confidence in the direction of the network. So much of what is happening is completely understandable. I want to stress this: People have a right to be anxious and upset.

So. My message to you, readers, is: It's...not easy to be objective, like, really objective, in the spur of the moment. Especially right now. It's an emotional reaction to your perception of actions taken. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as there no attempt to burn bridges. Try to take a step back and examine what you do know. See if there's enough there for you to make your decision.

Perhaps the value in participation is still there. Maybe it's not. But I think something that's missing is: these users expressing criticism, in any manner, are still here. Still trying to be heard. The value is still there for them. It's once these voices disappear that you've lost them.

---

So for anyone who made it this far, just ask yourself one question: "Is this still worth it to me?" If it is, then I implore you, try to trust SE one more time. Try to remember why you joined in the first place. Focus on that. Fight for why you stayed.

If not...that's alright. No shame to you, actually incredible respect. There's a time in everyone's life where you have to move on. It's a hard thing to walk away from something you've invested so much into, and it is, actually, harder than just staying.

Answer 5

There comes a point when we're posting on these sites, we need to ask. Am I doing this to achieve something good? Or am I stirring the pot? Digging up more mud?

It's because people still believe SE capable to change and act like they care. It's because it's not to late yet to earn back the trust of the community.

Many people donated countless hours to this site. When the owner (SE) then decides the ban a moderator who was widely appreciated without explanation, it feels incredibly arbitrary. People are afraid they'll be the next person to get arbitrarily rejected and slandered in the media.

So they respond, in the hope that SE can still change for the better, fix their mistakes, and become fair supervisors of the community.

Answer 6

I return to this discussion over and over and say stuff as if I'm contributing something valuable. It is incomprehensible to my why I do this.

If stating my opinions upsets people or provokes any negative emotions whatsoever, i don't want that. It's not a worthwhile tradeoff for me saying what I think. If any exchange with me has so much as gotten anyone's blood pressure up, I'm sorry. It wasn't worth it.

Fortunately I'm headed somewhere with limited connectivity, and whatever goes on can continue without any further interjection from me.

(If your response is "who the heck are you?" well, that's good too.)