In a completely hypothetical situation wherein a known employee of Stack Overflow takes public actions that are objectively detrimental to both the company and community, and for which actions shows no remorse and makes no attempt at amends, apology, or restitution:

Is this the appropriate forum to express the completely hypothetical opinion that the employee in question should resign their position for the benefit of the community?

I realize that this question may come across as trolling or gaslighting given the current... climate of Meta, but I'm not terribly familiar with the rules of Meta and I'm genuinely curious as to whether such a post would be in violation of any standing policies.

Please note that I'm not calling for anyone's resignation here (nor am I advocating such); I'm simply wondering how such a question would be received and whether it would be closed.

  • 31
    How can we pinpoint such an employee if the organizational structure of SO is opaque? Is the minion to blame - or is there a Gru lurking, gloating about their invulnerability?
    – W.O.
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 2:23
  • 4
    Edited for clarification; in this case I'm only interested in public actions of a known employee Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 2:25
  • 27
    I disagree with the proposed duplicate; I'm not asking how to escalate, I'm asking whether this is an appropriate forum to call for an employee's resignation. Presumably anyone making such a post would have exhausted all other (non-public) channels for escalation Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 2:30
  • 9
    and for which actions shows no remorse and makes no attempt at amends, apology, or restitution, and has exposed the company to legal liability... Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:33
  • 25
    Employees act on behalf of the company, with at least the tacit approval of the entire chain of command. If they don't, the company will sanction or remove the employee on its own, no need for outside input. If an employee does something you don't like, assume the company did it, knowingly and happily, and act accordingly.
    – Pekka
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 9:03
  • 5
    @CalebBrinkman that is exactly asking how to escalate
    – OrangeDog
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 10:35
  • 12
    Let's expand your hypothetical situation with one more hypothetically hypothetical hypothesis: say the actions taken (although objectively detrimental to the company) are actually backed by the company, because the company doesn't itself realize they are doing harm, whatever the amount of meta drama that followed. Let's say the company and its executives (who are the only persons empowered to terminate an employee) are in complete denial. Do you think you will be able to achieve anything (except maybe for your own suspension) by calling for the employee resignation?
    – dim
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 11:06
  • 6
    If you ask an SE employee,they'll tell you that all requests of such kind are inappropriate, be they placed in meta, a profile, or the contact an employee button. The administration has investigated itself and found no wrongdoing. But if you can pull in a few dozen people, it absolutely is the correct place. SE is more concerned with public disdain than proper conduct -- if you want a change, you must force their hand. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 14:10
  • 11
    @dim "Lie down and take the abuse" is great advice. If you want the situation to never change Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 14:16
  • 5
    The word "appropriate" doesn't mean what it used to. Does it mean anything? Rephrased: Anything and everything is appropriate. To say otherwise implies that there are standards. The bar has been lowered by SE so that there is no bar. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 14:16
  • 10
    I wonder how that employee feels seeing stuff like this. We all know who you are talking about...and so does that person.
    – JonH
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 14:27
  • 8
    @dim Leaving people in the dark and feeding them BS does nothing. We are not mushrooms. If enough "problematic" users leave, there will be no StackExchange. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 15:17
  • 26
    As we all know, the correct platform to get anything done is twitter.
    – yhyrcanus
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 16:24
  • 4
    @NateS "They're calling us out on our screwups! Retreat!" Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 18:18
  • 4
    Re mushrooms: Quote from Mushroom management: "The term mushroom management alludes to the stereotypical (and somewhat inaccurate) view of mushroom cultivation: kept in the dark and fed bullshit." Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 19:32

11 Answers 11


Speaking as a long-time employee who has had to deal with folks calling for his resignation (or unceremonious dismissal) on numerous occasions... No.

Now, I may be a bit biased here. But, it always felt petty and mean. Not to mention counter-productive. Like, why do I even want to show up to defend my actions or address concerns, if folks are gonna threaten my livelihood? You disagree with something I said or did? Fine, let's talk. But at the point where you're saying my family shouldn't eat... Yeah, we got nothing to say to each other.

Just my $0.02.

  • 258
    I wish all employees had the attitude of "fine, let's talk". Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 2:47
  • 73
    "family [of some hypothetical person] shouldn't eat" sounds hyperbolic. In the end, some competence is required for a job, and if the requirements are not met, that's a problem. I certainly do not advocate for publicly calling for a resignation of specific persons (for many reasons), and would also recommend others to not do this. But I hope that at some level of the management hierarchy, people are able to figure out what went wrong, who is responsible, and how this can be prevented in the future. (I'd like to say "how it can be fixed", but ... that would sound naive...)
    – Marco13
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:35
  • 6
    Fully behind you here, Shog. People's jobs should be off-limits. (And in less hypothetical situations, I think the responsibility for a certain actions should be laid at the feet of SE, the company, who can themselves decide whether or not to discipline employees.)
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 7:58
  • 58
    We are not talking about cases where you shut down a chat room and get called out, or when I delete some crap post on skeptics and people want my resignation as a moderator. We are talking about a person who despite well-sourced negative feedback has chosen to take destructive actions and keeps on damaging the community. An escalation of complaints, including mass resignation of moderators, did not lead to any corrective action. So what is the correct course of action assuming there was such a situation and such a case of misbehavior? E.g. a case of gross incompetence or gross misconduct.
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 7:56


This is a good place to point out issues with things an employee has done that affects the community negatively (including, hypothetically, actions such as defamatory statements to the press). But it is not reasonable to request and expect the company to actually fire someone.

In any given situation, there are basically three possibilities:

  1. The employee has acted on their own and deliberately/maliciously, in order to cause damage to the company's reputation or to the user(s) involved in the situation
  2. The employee has acted on their own and made an honest mistake
  3. The employee has acted according to guidelines and/or direct instructions, and thus in the eye of the company done nothing wrong

It's up to the employee's manager/management chain to determine which of these possibilities applies.

In the first case, firing might or might not be the appropriate action for the company to take.

In the second, training or a performance improvement plan or a reassignment of duties might be appropriate, or some other form of remedial action.

In the third case, I'd be more interested in posing the same questions to the person(s) who issued the guidelines or instructions than in firing the employee who followed them. (Though in cases where the error is egregious and obvious, I would hope that most people would object rather than "just follow orders" - but this is hard to judge from the outside, and as a user of the platform we're not in possession of enough facts to draw correct conclusions about amount of guilt on a given person.)

  • 6
    Absolutely the best answer. All user(s) can do is point out particular issue. It is up to the company to deal with them as they see fit. That does not mean we have to be happy with how company resolves the issue, but it is out of our hands. Having incompetent employees is not in the company best interest. Of course, sometimes incompetence bill arrives way to late. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 9:38
  • It's up to the employee's manager/management chain to determine which of these possibilities applies In a perfect world, that's absolutely true. However, practically it does not address cases where direct supervisors have a conflict of interest, bias, or were involved themselves in any bad behaviour. If we define accountability as the domain of an employer and not also the public or people who have relationships with that company, then I can only see more harm than good in that definition. And the public or relationships can indeed have enough facts. In this case, I believe everyone does. Commented Nov 10, 2019 at 20:14
  • @TheAnathema Hence the inclusion of management chain. If the direct supervisor is biased to an extent their supervisor or someone else up the management chain finds unacceptable, they should step in. We all know that companies don't always do that, of course. But as a part of the general public/userbase, we can know only those facts that have been made public - which generally does not include disciplinary actions short of firing/forced resignation. And we also don't know whether the actions of one individual were ordered by someone else up the management chain.
    – Jenny D
    Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 10:24
  • 1
    @TheAnathema Also, as regards accountability: a staff member is accountable to their company. The company is accountable to its shareholders and to those with whom it has entered into a contract, e.g. users who've accepted their terms of use, moderators, etc. We should hold StackExchange accountable, rather than focus on one employee.
    – Jenny D
    Commented Nov 12, 2019 at 8:21

It isn't. It doesn’t do anyone any good. It'll certainly never work, and all it does is make them feel more isolated, and more likely to lash out.

Practically - the more likely outcome is folks are going to circle wagons and make life difficult.

Its worth considering - you don't affect that one employee. You affect their interactions with us. You affect the feedback that they give to their bosses, and how they treat and expect their underlings to act with us.

I doubt social media would work much better either, unless you're famous.

If you think someone is hurting SE - the best thing to do is work against it constructively. Hold your community together. Blunt the worst of the stupidity - if they want to hurt the community, help shield it.

While I admit I get the anger - we also need to focus on helping each other and surviving the worst of it.

  • 32
    I guess the real question is "How do we get SE to listen to us?"
    – user245382
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:07
  • 7
    Well, If I knew, I'd be doing it. But sometimes you can't effect change directly. SE as an organisation has no ears. The people of SE do. If everyone is shouting, we can't hear anything. Sometimes its worth forgetting what seems obvious and work through other ways. I'm pretty furious with recent events, but I'd rather focus on fixing the damage that these actions have caused, in whatever way I can. If we can do what they clearly couldn't, that sends a much more fun signal dosen't it? Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:12
  • 19
    "Fixing the damage" seems like mopping up the street while the dam above the whole town is crumbling. Some would say that the root of the problem needs to be fixed, rather than to merely just treat the symptoms.
    – user245382
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:16
  • 7
    And the root problem goes further back than one specific employee. Or even this year. Attempts at quick fixes to "problems" might be something that could be said to make things worse, on the whole. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 3:22
  • 3
    @JourneymanGeek If everyone is shouting, we can't hear anything, what if everyone is shouting about the same thing?then that'd be a forceful voice that shouldn't be discarded, while that's what even caused this in first place
    – Vishwa
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 10:42
  • 3
    Well, It does sometimes feel like folks have earmuffs on. I don't think getting rid of a specific employee does much good if their replacement does the same thing. Fixing the damage they did would be something more worth putting our voices to. Which does seem to be a case. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 10:44
  • 1
    @JourneymanGeek - Agreed about the "getting rid of" part. Sometimes a firing seems counterproductive, anyway – I mean, I'd rather keep someone who is likely to learn from a past mistake than hire a new person who may be more likely to repeat it. (When the person doesn't even want to acknowledge the mistakes, though, that can get frustrating.) Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 11:11
  • 3
    @JourneymanGeek Aside from literally being the entire purpose of crime and punishment, the chilling effect removal has on future potential offenders has plenty of side benefits. They move to a job they can't abuse people in, someone else takes their place and knows that that shite is off limits. Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 16:49

No, meta is not an appropriate place.

If you have a concern about an employee, you need to communicate with the company, not with other users of the company's products/services. If, as in your hypothetical case, an employee has taken "public actions that are objectively detrimental to both the company and community," then it's likely that everyone here already knows about them and even if they don't, this isn't the audience that needs to be informed.

There might not be a specific policy that applies to a post that says "employee so-and-so should resign," but such a post could easily fall under at least 2 different close reasons.

  • 26
    Meta used to be a place where we could communicate with the company.
    – Ben Miller
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 16:00
  • 5
    @BenMiller-ReinstateMonica I don't think such a place exists anymore. Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 13:36

Not at all.

And the underlying argument boils down to a counter question:

Assume you ran into a conflict with another user, right here on meta.stackexchange.com. There is a heated exchange, and you cross some lines. Now: would you want the moderators, or worse, Stack Exchange Inc. Community Managers to openly discuss ideas about your suspension here?! Or would you want that the other user puts up a question like Caleb needs to be suspended, who agrees?!

And no, the situation is really not much different: you don't want that your "identity" gets dragged into the public like that.

We can not stand up and ask Stack Exchange Inc. to treat moderators like Monica in better ways, when we come in (at the same time) and publicly go "and you have to fire this or that employee of yours".

Long story short, never forget the golden rule:

Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.

  • 5
    The golden rule is even better when stated as a positive. :) Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 7:48
  • 7
    @ReinstateMonica I have cultural difficulties with that. I am from Swabia in Germany, and the basic theme around here is something like "not pointing out something bad is regarded being positive already" ;-}
    – GhostCat
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 7:52

No, it is not appropriate, not even close to being appropriate.

A misstep by an employee should be seen as a misstep by the company. It's up to the company to take measures based on that, or not. We're not talking a mere disagreement, we're talking taking away somebody's income and a whole series of dramatic side effects. It is disproportional and not our place to call for this.

It is also cruel. The person in question is a private individual that by the nature of the work is semi-publicly known. An ordinary person, not a celebrity or politician. We should firmly draw a line where in today's cancel culture it is not normalized that the internet has one day simply decided that you're out of a job or labelled forever. On the basis of a statement, disagreement, or error. This too is disproportional and in nobody's interest. It is against the interest of anybody using their real name online.

I've seen such a pile-on happen at GitLab recently. Their CFO very publicly made a huge mistake. The community backlash was incredibly cruel, much harder than here. Like a gang of 500 kicking somebody who is already down, and even taking pleasure in it. It's awful.

The man made an error at work. I've made plenty of those, and I'm sure you have too. Yet when I make such an error, and leave work, there's not a crowd of 500 hooded (anonymous) people on the streets awaiting me to call for me to step down. Nor is anybody spray painting the entire city with my name so that it is remembered that I made the error.

Yet that is what a public pile-on or call for resignation does on the Internet. It's cruel, disproportional and not our place.

You could argue that the particular error made at SE was exactly like that, a public vilification of a person. Yes, and given how much this outrages the community, that's exactly why we shouldn't do such things.

The correct (moral) way to handle this is to keep pressure on the entity SE, not the employee.

  • 17
    It might be worth noting that the Gitlab situation included a very good public apology and course change, unlike here. One could even argue that the tactics, while harsh, were effective in bringing about the needed changes.
    – Nate S.
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 17:41
  • 4
    @NateS-ReinstateMonica True, but let's also include the comments at the actual apology. The community had what they wanted, yet continued to bash the individual and call for his firing. The point (error) had already been made a 1,000 times and was corrected. Still people feel the need to continue personal attacks for no other reason than to inflict more harm. I find that low, cruel, sadistic and cowardly. I despise this behavior, even on somebody I'd consider a (moral) enemy.
    – Fer
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 19:38
  • 1
    True, of course there's also some people out for blood, but I don't think that's everyone. I personally would draw a distinction between applying as much pressure as necessary to get the company to do the right thing, and continuing personal attacks without any demands. The former I support; the latter I don't.
    – Nate S.
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 20:41

I am going to disagree with the existing answers, and I am going to explain why.


Let me admit up front that I don't just think it's appropriate to call for a resignation, right here on MSE. I have done so. One of the problems that SO Inc faces is a breakdown in the relation between the Community Team and the community. I am not suggesting this is the only problem, but it is one that needs to be resolved.

The next question is of course how the problem can be resolved. If the breakdown was incidental to the functioning of the Community Team, we might be discussing other options. But that's not the case. As the name says, the whole point of the Community Team is to communicate with the community. This team is failing in its core activity.

The harsh fact here is that the breakdown is not mendable, and SO Inc does not have the real option of dismissing the community. This is a familiar problem encountered by professional sports teams, and there's a familiar solution. The coach leaves, the team stays. Individuals can be replaced.

Raised objections

Shog9 mentions that such a call is petty and mean. This may be the case sometimes, but we should downvote down petty and mean proposals because of those reasons. That logic applies to all petty and mean proposals, regardless of the target or the suggested course of action.

Shog9 also brings up the threaten to the livelihood of the affected SO Inc employee. I can understand this point. New York is an expensive city to live in. However, I again point to the "sports team" analogy. A coach that's fired may need to move to a different city. And that's chiefly because there are only a limited number of sports teams. There are plenty of other jobs at other companies in New York similar to those at SO Inc. A move might not even be necessary.

"Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.". This is of course personal, that is the whole point of the statement. Personally, I accept criticism (If you think this answer can be improved; do comment below.) I might not like mean and petty feedback, but see before.

Multiple people have brought up that MSE might not be the best place. I agree with the comments below those posts - MSE is the place to talk about things in common to the Stack Exchange sites, especially those that need improvement. The Community Team needs improvement. The continued silence towards the community in this matter proves that. The improvement has two parts. We need a clean cut with the past, and a positive outlook. Let's not talk in the abstract here. Keeping Sara Chipps as an employee continues to hurt SO Inc and its community.

  • While I thoroughly disagree with your answer, I only have time this morning to point out that Shog doesn't live in New York, and it's fair to say that the lion's share of staffers don't.
    – Makoto
    Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 13:56
  • 3
    Sara Chipps is the Director of Public Q&A, not a member of the Community Team. The Community Team members are listed here. Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 16:47
  • 1
    @S.L.Barth-ReinstateMonica: It was my understanding that she is responsible for the Community Team, at least to a certain degree. If she isn't, how did she even get involved in the whole affair?! Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 20:20
  • 1
    @MSalters I don't know if the Community Team answers to her, or to someone else. She's not a member though. The Community Team itself isn't responsible for the crisis, but they do have to deal with the consequences. (And if any of the CT are reading this: you folks have my sympathy!) Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 20:38

I'm simply wondering how such a question would be received and whether it would be closed.

I recently had a comment (not a question, but a comment similar to a rhetorical question) removed for exactly this reason.

I am sharing the PM I received because I think a similarly-worded question would receive a similar response.

Based on my experience, a post that does not directly call for someone to resign but implies that the post's author and others would welcome such an action would still get censored.

Moderator Private Message from moderators sent Dec 24 at 14:35 to C8H10N4O2 Hello,

We're writing in reference to your Meta Stack Exchange account:


We wanted to let you know that we've observed some rudeness in your latest activity. We get it; anyone who's ever tried to engage with others online has probably been tempted to lash out at someone else. This is just a friendly reminder that we require all participants to act in a professional and civil tone when using these sites. If another user has wronged you in some way, please do not respond in kind. Simply flag the content for moderator attention and move on.

MSE is not an appropriate place to call for employees to be fired or resign, no matter how angry you may be.

If this is a simple misunderstanding, no harm done. Sometimes it is helpful to remind ourselves on occasion that keeping things friendly and constructive doesn't have to be at odds with being right — so enjoy the site, bring your sense of humor, and please be tolerant of others who may not know everything you know.

Regards, Meta Stack Exchange Moderation Team

add a new private reply

from C8H10N4O2

to ChrisF ♦;Journeyman Geek ♦;Tinkeringbell ♦


While I find myself agreeing with Shog's wonderfully written answer, I feel like there's another angle to consider.

Being upset about a decision being made is perfectly fine. Depending on the decision or decision maker, that can be par for the course. There's nothing wrong or inherently unhealthy about a disagreement.

However, when it comes to calling for someone's resignation over that disagreement, this is where things fly off the rails very quickly. It slams shut the opportunity to actually discuss anything constructively, since it's as if you have some kind of sway or position in whether or not someone here remains gainfully employed, as opposed to their employer.

If you want to talk about your disagreements...

then talk about them.

You don't have to shout or call for heads or any of that nonsense since that's going to set you waaaaay back, and leave you thoroughly unsatisfied.

I used to play a game called RuneScape. The company behind it - Jagex - has had a very colorful history of...shall we say, "unpopular" decisions. There were a few breaking points for some people which eventually wound up becoming the "we pay, we say" rallying cry.

...and that was all back the early 2010s.

I've thought about that for a long while since it kind of haunted me. Why would people putting money on the table then get to dictate how that money is spent? I wouldn't want to run a business if that's how things actually worked.

I won't deny that a consumer has considerable leverage over a company's direction, but that leverage comes strongest in the form of persuasion. A company changes its strategy if it is persuaded to do so, and even then only if it aligns with the hidden goals and vision of the company itself.

I never really got on board with that cry since it was never an actionable thing. The amount of privilege someone must have to even type something like that always stuck out to me as...silly. Ultimately, if you don't like what you're paying for, stop paying for it.

The same thing seems to be happening here. If you don't like what's going on, then you don't have to keep participating. Coming here to demand that people resign/step down/be fired is tantamount to having your cake and eating it too; recent events have forced you away from your desired path of participation, but you still participate and want others to be punished. That's a non-starter.

  • I like the runescape reference, and funny fact about that is the release of OSRS which is a community driven game where almost all changes to the game are actually polled before being made, with some exceptions.
    – Mark
    Commented Dec 3, 2019 at 21:00

Absolutely Not.

In the end, the employee is the company's employee, not ours. They were hired by the company, not by us, for reasons the company felt (at the time) were good reasons. We don't have access to those reasons, because we aren't included in the hiring process. Nor should we be.

An employee is hired based on how well the employee will further the company's business aims. Those aims may not agree with the customers' desires, but that is the company's decision to make, whether in hiring an employee because they fit well, or firing them because they fit poorly. If we feel that the company's business practices are not in line with our desires, we can certainly complain about them. But the company should be able to do what it thinks is best. It's their decision and their responsibility.

  • 3
    That's a strange argument. We're not involved in any business decision. Does that mean we can't critique any of them? To me, it means the exact opposite. Commented Nov 29, 2019 at 22:54
  • 2
    We can certainly critique them so far as they apply to us. Similarly, I think it's completely appropriate for us to critique the actions of particular employees. But there's a big difference in my mind between saying "This employee took wrong actions" and "This employee should be fired." Commented Nov 29, 2019 at 23:59

Calling for the firing of an employee of any company (because let's face it, you're not calling for a resignation) is NEVER ok. People's livelihoods are off-limits. Some people have been sacked for their view (AFAIK, not with SE, but other companies), and that's a BAD thing we should all oppose.

That being said, there have been actions done by SE that you don't agree with. The proper recourse is to:

  • Point out the action here on meta, along with a polite version of "WTH were you thinking, SE?". Make clear that you consider SE responsible for it.
  • Click the "contact" button in the footer, and proceed to the the exact same thing in a more private way. Remember that being polite makes it harder for people to dismiss your opinions. This is a subconscious thing.

And as long as a satisfactory response doesn't come up, feel free to keep up an amount of pressure, much like already happening right now.

  • 17
    -1. The same people who started this mess have changed the rules of the game so that "Calling for the firing of an employee" is not only OK, but is their favorite tactics and roundly cheered. The reverse of golden rule applies here.
    – DVK
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 15:30
  • 8
    @DVK Then we disagree on that. That's called freedom of speech. Feel free to write your own answer, since everyone here comes to the same conclusion as I do, even if their reasoning is different.
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 7, 2019 at 15:37
  • @JJforTransparencyandMonica For example, the thread about forced relicencing is often updated, and probably the most voted Meta question in history. That's a type of pressure. Suspending moderator tasks is a form of pressure. (as you can do that from 500+ rep by skipping review tasks).
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 9:34
  • 3
    Ah yes, volunteers not doing tasks which will then get done by other volunteers, that'll teach them.
    – JJJ
    Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 9:49
  • @JJforTransparencyandMonica Hey, I'm with you here. I feel powerless to. But that's no excuse for some actions.
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50
  • 3
    I don't feel powerless. I quite enjoy the irony where users are outraged about a bunch of incompetent company executives on the one hand but keep providing their free services for that company on the other. And no, at the current pace we have nowhere near the leverage needed to demand change and it's just cute to see people donate more of their free time thinking they have any shot at change.
    – JJJ
    Commented Nov 8, 2019 at 10:00
  • This isn't true. An enforced resignation is not the same thing as being fired. They are not functionally identical. A lay-off, vs. being fired, vs. being told to resign, are all different functionally and most of the times even legally. Commented Nov 10, 2019 at 19:58
  • I'm not to familiar with the English version of all these terms - but why I make that distinction is that resignation is from the employee's initiative while being fired is from the employers initiative.
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 7:45
  • 19
    Does "people's livelihoods are off-limits" apply to victims of employee actions too? Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 15:32
  • @MonicaCellio Even more in my opinion. But I don't believe in eye-for-an-eye. I fully support your lawsuit, even if sad that SE is being a-hole-ish enough to necessitate it.
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 15:39
  • 7
    @Gloweye yeah, I'm not saying we should stoop to their level; there's tons I could say but won't because I still believe in ethical behavior even if they don't. I'm just saying that the feeling is understandable; SE has different rules for employees and us, and that's really not ok. Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 15:54
  • 1
    Yes, it's definitely understandable, and the double standard between employees and normal users is sickening.
    – Gloweye
    Commented Nov 12, 2019 at 7:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .