69

The following question, Does the Fram's ban on Wikipedia seem similar to recent events? What can Stack Exchange learn from it? by Rebecca J. Stones has been locked by a moderator. No comments can be posted beneath a locked question and it cannot be voted on, currently the question stands 112 upvotes vs 24 downvotes. No new answers can be posted until the question is unlocked.

This is the third time a mod has intervened on this specific post and imposed their evaluation. Journeyman said in a comment, unfortunately hidden unless one opens the entire rolling blind:

Moderator actions aside - this post has been closed and reopened at least twice by the community. I'm pretty sure this is going to get asked about, and meta discussion will happen. I don't see close/reopen wars as healthy so... folks, lets work this out before we go through another few cycles of closing and reopening. – Journeyman Geek♦ 21 hours ago

I duly note that the question had three reopen votes when I last checked yesterday. In the review queue three users against one confirmed it should remain closed, but there was always a chance that two more users, with the necessary rep, could have cast their reopen votes.

Those three reopen votes have since disappeared, and I do not understand why.

Someone might say I should just let sleeping dogs lie. Yet, @Rebecca Rebecca J. Stones' question was not among the most controversial, it was and still is on-topic because it compares how two different managements banned or removed someone's title. It is not focused on Wikipedia incident because the OP repeatedly compares the Wikipedia's banning Fram with the firing of Monica Cellio.

Could Stack Exchange have learned from Wikipedia's event which occurred in June, 2019? Did both companies commit serious errors? Were either one professional and transparent?

In my opinion, the post should be reopened but first it must be unlocked. I would appreciate hearing what other users think.

UPDATE 28/11/2019
The question was unlocked on Nov 27th, and reopened on Nov 28th.

  • 10
    One reason a post may be locked is if it is subject to a repeated close or delete war, so I think the lock here is valid. – Sonic the Masked Werehog Nov 21 '19 at 21:07
  • 24
    @SonictheReinstateMonica-hog I think it was locked for other reasons. – Mari-Lou A Nov 21 '19 at 21:08
  • 2
    @SonictheReinstateMonicaHog this post might be a good place to resolve disputes about the Fram ban post's content, as suggested in the lock message. – De Novo Nov 21 '19 at 21:13
  • 45
    How does Journeyman Geek♦ want us to "work this out"? In a meta-meta question like this? Are we expected to come to a consensus on whether or not the question deserves to exist amongst ourselves? Maybe we could, I dunno, vote on it or something... – user245382 Nov 21 '19 at 21:21
  • 1
    Relevant?: "Can we show post lock timers to all users?" - It will be unlocked sometime or you can flag to request it after some time. It gets locked for various reasons, including too many Mod Notifications. Outside of auto-lock it's a discretionary mod/CM power. --- To post an "answer" to Mari-Lou A's question, what you write needs to qualify as a good answer; IE: explain why it ought not to have been locked. Less than that is NAA. – Rob Nov 21 '19 at 21:25
  • 22
    Ironically by locking it @journeymangeek has guaranteed more discussion about it. – George Stocker Nov 22 '19 at 0:04
  • 2
    @GeorgeStocker I'm not sure if it's ironic. The lock message does say we "may discuss this on meta if you have concerns." If anything, it might appear we've been thrown a bone to distract us from something bigger than any single diamond. – JJ for Popcorn and Monica Nov 22 '19 at 4:20
  • 3
    I remember that post about Fram's ban. I wanted to give my two cents to it as well but it was closed. Maybe that is a good thing because there are a lot of two cents around here. I can imagine that question becoming extremely complicated very soon (it is a wild mixture of a lot of unguided discussions). Maybe it should become community wiki and people can gather their ideas into a few single answers rather than the current mess. – Sextus Empiricus Nov 22 '19 at 8:31
28

Oh my! I'm really not the controversy type.

Given that Stack Exchange has basically stopped communicating (and I don't blame them), it seems reasonable to find precedent elsewhere. Wikipedia is probably the most similar company to Stack Exchange: it has comparable size (both community and company), business model, and has to follow the same US legislation. The similarity of Wikipedia's recent history vs. Stack Exchange was astonishing.

Reading that news article made me think I have so many questions.

  1. Why are both Wikipedia and Stack Exchange both pushing now for inclusivity for women, minorities, etc., rather than in the last 10+ years? Is there something in US law that requires this?
  2. Are these "welcome wagons" merely to give the impression of an LGBT-inclusive business (i.e., pinkwashing)? [There are LGBT sites which give companies "LGBT-friendliness rankings" and companies boast these (probably as a counter-argument to possible down-the-line litigation).]
  3. After the uproar, did Wikipedia simply ignore its community? Were they successful?
  4. Was there litigation in Fram's case, and if so, what happened? Which laws apply?
  5. Fram seemed to be a self-proclaimed "power user" (with emphasis on power) and it did not turn out well; should we abandon the notion of a "power user" and consider users more equally?
  6. Are there other sites than Wikipedia and Stack Exchange experiencing the same issues?

Nevertheless, I feel I've basically achieved my initial aim of drawing attention to the topic---it seems like we could learn from history. I can understand how one might consider the question inherently 50% about Wikipedia (we have the similar boundary issues about computational and applied mathematics at math.SE). And I can understand it seems a bit like speculation and gossip (although I tend to think of it as "precedent"). However, I feel it's a little unfair to say my question is "unfocused" or words to that effect: it's meta.SE; some questions are not even questions! There's "questions" which have the form "[Post.] Discuss."

In any case, it's probably not a big deal to let things cool down for a bit. There's no hurry.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    While there may be a valid Meta question to connect Wikipedia's event with Stack Exchange's event, I think it needs to be properly bounded to keep it on-topic. For instance, #s 3, 4, and 6 here seem squarely off-topic. Parts of 1, 2, and 5 could be on-topic, and I would change my close vote if the question was edited to focus specifically on those parts. – Alex Nov 22 '19 at 2:42
  • 1
    Just about your 1st bullet point: a quick google search with the words "inclusivity business importance" will bring sooo many worth reading articles like this one. And bring some light into the darkness to some folks who, like me, didn't know "this side of the story"... – OldPadawan Nov 22 '19 at 6:14
  • 3
    I think it was a very useful post; it's no surprise that similar problems keep arising among disparate communities. It's human nature, and we would all be well served in examining how other communities and companies handle those issues... what can help, and what can destroy. Learn it so we don't repeat it. I think the only real off topic part was self-inflicted by arguing needlessly over whether it was off-topic or not. – Ask About Monica Nov 22 '19 at 17:26
  • 5
    "Pinkwashing" or similar is my own suspicion. The messaging I'm getting from the company doesn't feel sincere. – TRiG Nov 22 '19 at 17:41
  • 2
    "Why are both Wikipedia and Stack Exchange both pushing now for inclusivity for women, minorities, etc., rather than in the last 10+ years?" That's a really good question and maybe worth it's own question thread. On the other hand I would like first to establish that that really is the case. The pronoun rule is hardly noticable in practice and as a side effect also increased the feeling to be at risk. It would be interesting to discuss how inclusive SO really had become. – Trilarion Nov 22 '19 at 20:50
42

Discussions about ways to constructively resolve some of the issues SE has experienced should be on topic here. While there are many things that make SE unique, we are not so different from other repositories of community created content that reflecting on the experience of other communities couldn't be helpful. Some users may use answering as an opportunity to express their disappointment or frustration. If that is actually a problem, the answers should be moderated as such rather than the question.

Re: the close reason, the post in question doesn't seem to be any more opinion based than other on topic discussions of SE policy.

Edit: the question has been unlocked. I do agree that it would be a better question if edited to focus on how we can learn from the Wikipedia experience, but I've still voted to re-open as is.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Absolutely - unfortunately, that question became a mess because it was 25% about concrete things SE can learn from, but 75% opinions and speculation about something that happened on another site. In an ideal world I think we'd post a tighter question, like "Can we learn from the way Wikipedia solved its controversy with Fram?", and invite Luke to transpose this excellent answer that is actually based on the facts of that case. – user56reinstatemonica8 Nov 22 '19 at 17:09
11

Could Stack Exchange have learned from Wikipedia's event which occurred in June, 2019. Did both companies commit serious errors? Were either one professional and transparent?

I think there's one way to find out. That is to unlock the question, to have people read it, vote on it, comment on it, reflect on it and answer it. Then, to have people read that answer, vote on it, comment on it, reflect on it.

Notice how important concepts of this community come to light when reading your question, voting on it, commenting on it, reflection on it, and now, answering it. I hope you and others will go on to read my answer, vote on it, perhaps even comment on it (but not too much, we don't want to upset anyone now), but certainly reflect on it.

I call this, the cycle because it's something many people here do a lot. I am not going to repeat the cycle again because it's getting repetitive now, and that reminds me of simplicial complexes and how they have no boundary.

| improve this answer | |
11

I think locking the post is a sensible option. There is clearly a difference of opinion within the community about whether the question should be open or not. When a question gets closed and reopened several times in a short period of time I think it is a pretty standard moderator action to lock it until the community can reach a consensus.

As for whether the question should actually be open or closed, I was part if the most recent team of closers. I voted to close it as off-topic because it did not seem to be primarily about Stack Exchange. The main thrust of the question seemed to be whether and why the Wikipedia incident was similar to the Stack Exchange incident. I don’t think that asking if or why something is similar to something in Stack Exchange is on-topic. For example, if I would ask “Why does my kitchen have the same background colors as Stack Exchange beta sites?” I would expect it to be closed. I’m not sure that tacking on “What can we learn from this?” is enough to save it.

I will note, though, that I do not agree with the question’s current close reason. I don’t think the question is particularly more opinion-based than many of the other questions here. Unfortunately, the system only displays the majority close reason, so it misrepresents my (and perhaps others?) position. If the post hadn’t been locked I’d have half a mind to vote to reopen just for that.

In short, I don’t think the issue is that the question is too controversial. It’s simply not clear that it meets the criteria to belong on this site.

| improve this answer | |
10

Let's be objective, then.

Looking at the history of the post, I count no fewer than three reviews in which the question should be "left closed". Contrast that to the two "leave open" reviews done. The community is divided on what to do with this question, so IMO leaving it locked for a couple of days is probably fine until everyone cools off a bit.

Additionally, I'm just wondering what the actual objective of the post is. For those of us who neither know nor care about Wikipedia, why is that being used to bring up a discussion that has been thoroughly covered by now? Why does Wikipedia's politics apply to anything we do here? There's similarities but I don't think one correlates to the other in any way, and it feels like that's what's being posed.

Why does Fram's ban on Wikipedia seem so similar to recent events here and what can we learn from these two events?

My gut reaction (and thus subjective take) is that people want to still be upset, and that's well within their rights. But...I don't think that another discussion point on this in this context is what would bring value to Meta.

| improve this answer | |
  • 32
    You began with "Let's be objective, then", and then gave a bunch of subjective reasons for justifying the closure/lock – user245382 Nov 21 '19 at 22:10
  • 5
    You say that the discussion (which your 2nd link suggests several matters, e.g. the loss of a person's moderating privileges, the resulting resignation of several moderators, the reaction of the community, the updated CoC, the (bungled) apologies by SE management, the recommendations about pronouns usage, the fear of being singled out and being made unwelcomed, the utter and complete lack of communication between a former volunteer moderator and her bosses... how can you claim it "has been thoroughly covered by now?" It has not. It has, largely, been a one-sided discussion. – Mari-Lou A Nov 21 '19 at 22:30
  • 6
    @Mari-LouA: This is why I believe it's been thoroughly covered. One side wants to continue the conversation. The other side doesn't (or can't, because of Legal). Saying nothing in a conversation is still holding a conversation; the phrase "silence speaks volumes" comes through on this one. Not being satisfied that you're not getting the conversation you want is not the same thing as not having a conversation. But it still has been quite thoroughly and quite extensively covered. – Makoto Nov 21 '19 at 22:40
  • 2
    @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man: I stayed objective with my first paragraph. The facts are clear - the community is split on what to do with this question, and I do believe that a lock on the post is sufficient to give everyone a chance to cool off and really evaluate what's going on. – Makoto Nov 21 '19 at 22:42
  • @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man: My subjective take on it is to try to find value in the discussion. What are we discussing that hasn't already been discussed? Is the focus of the question the ban on Wikipedia (which requires knowledge into their politics), the Monica situation (which we know isn't going to get an official response per Legal), or something else? The question posed itself isn't clear on that. – Makoto Nov 21 '19 at 22:42
  • 7
    Saying nothing in a conversation is still holding a conversation So, we should just forget about it because the other side is unwilling to talk? That is usually the signal that the partner willing to talk, listen and compromise will give up and walk away. Exactly what is happening on SE, the best users will stop caring, stop participating, stop moderating. SE will continue to have newer and newer partners (i.e. “contributors“) but they'll never match up with the original ones. – Mari-Lou A Nov 21 '19 at 22:45
  • 4
    @Mari-LouA: I never implied that you should "forget" about it. I'm only looking at the constructive value of this question in this context. Is the question talking about Wikipedia? Is it trying to discuss Monica again? (Again, we know that Stack Exchange isn't going to issue an official statement on that, so I very much question why one is trying to bother.) If it's discussing, Wikipedia's policies and politics, why should I care? Convince me. I'm willing to be convinced. – Makoto Nov 21 '19 at 22:50
  • 2
    My post is asking for users' opinions (and you gave yours). It is asking that the question to be unlocked. Rebecca's Q was hardly controversial. My post is also asking what happened to the three reopen votes that were cast. Does locking a question mean those votes are hidden or deleted? J.Geek left a comment, I waited several hours to see what would happen. I took the plunge because I think it's a good question. It's interesting, well presented, formatted, and researched. And it's on-topic, it is not only about Wikipedia. – Mari-Lou A Nov 21 '19 at 22:57
  • 2
    May I suggest editing the answer to possibly remove the first sentence, or perhaps reword to provide a line between objective statements and subjective ones? Otherwise, I am in firm agreement. – anonymous Nov 22 '19 at 0:41
9

Unfortunately - the only real way I could have made my comment more visible was editing the original post (boo) or deleting all the comments (and in this case it didn't feel like the right thing yet). I was working under the expectation that this meta question would have turned up eventually.

Hardly controversial isn't true. Mod closures aside (and frankly - we were kinda uncomfortable with the post, and there was pretty much a consensus here). Mod actions aside, the post has been closed twice. That's not counting the times it's been in the review queue. I think that counts as disputed content.

In a week - if folks still feel there's value, they can vote to reopen it. They can also think about any improvements that can be made.

Meta can be a soapbox, but I'd like folks to consider the broader implications of what they do, and try to work through context, and winning over folks, rather than having an ever increasing series of escalations no matter which side you are on.

I doubt anyone will forget this in a week. I do hope in that time, the passions have simmered down a bit however and folks can work out what they hope to achieve. We have a meta post to discuss this.

| improve this answer | |
  • 9
    Those 3 reopen votes are now invalid. OK. How long a period before they can be recast? – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 0:55
  • 6
    Its a one week lock, check back when its over, Its a week cause a day is too short, and a month is too long. And I can't set any other length – Journeyman Geek Nov 22 '19 at 1:00
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA The votes age out once they're 4 days old, one vote per day, and then they can be recast 14 days after they age. – Sonic the Masked Werehog Nov 22 '19 at 1:00
  • 3
    @JourneymanGeek The timing of the lock isn't disclosed to the public until it is eventually auto-unlocked by the Community user, so even though you do set the lock to be timed, people will still assume it's indefinite unless you explicitly say it's not elsewhere. So I don't think that part at least is really an issue. – Sonic the Masked Werehog Nov 22 '19 at 1:08
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA I'm not sure, but even if they can't, they can still clear and cancel the bounty before locking it. – Sonic the Masked Werehog Nov 22 '19 at 1:11
  • 19
    All three mods by closing single-handedly or by locking this question attempted to keep it closed. The mods' actions succeeded in making this post controversial. N.B please fix the line which says hardly controversial, I said it wasn't among the most controversial. Moreover, the post is packed with references, not opinions, roughly 90% of the posts on meta, questions and answers, have less substance and less supporting evidence than this one. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 1:31
  • 13
    The CMs are not telling us what to do. Cripes folks. I don't work for SE. I don't have any particular obligation to follow the party line. I do have the power, and occationally the obligation to try to do what I feel is best for the community. Whether that's yelling at corporate - and that happens, or making a few people unhappy because people need to calm down. I'd love for SE to take a little more leadership, but Its entirely inaccurate and unfair to claim we're working on behalf of the company. – Journeyman Geek Nov 22 '19 at 2:04
  • 9
    JMG seems to be the one camper who puts rocks around the fire to try and limit the spread. I appreciate you and the fact that you are keeping a fairly level head while there seems to be hidden agendas and traps behind almost every post. – Drew Nov 22 '19 at 2:26
  • 8
    You don't have to work for corporate to be aligned with corporate. There is a distinct subset of users and moderators that seems to think the way to resolve the problems is to ignore them. That is corporate's strategy. – De Novo Nov 22 '19 at 6:17
  • 12
    There is a constructive path forward, but it doesn't involve ignoring the problems. – De Novo Nov 22 '19 at 6:18
  • 6
    I'm not ignoring this. Quite the opposite. I'm putting folks on time out until they sort this out. I've addresses the what, why and what's expected. Its quite the opposite of ignoring. – Journeyman Geek Nov 22 '19 at 6:21
  • 1
    To be absolutely clear, the comment implying that the mods were following company's orders (words to that effect) was NEVER mine and it is now deleted. Whether it was by a mod or by its author, I don't know. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 6:58
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA the comment was deleted by myself. As my english is not the best and my comment had a meaning I didnt think it would. My comment was directed to the CMs, as when problematic stuff happen on MSE we hear crikets these days from the CMs. I guess a wake up call to the SE leadership badly done. I deleted it as I hurted someone I appreciate in my way to tell it. – yagmoth555 Nov 22 '19 at 13:00
  • 1
    @yagmoth555-GoFoundMeMonica I understand that it was interpreted a little harshly, this miscommunication can happen when we speak any language that is not our mother tongue. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 13:06
  • 5
    @JourneymanGeek How do you want us to "sort this out"? With meta posts like these? – user245382 Nov 22 '19 at 14:43
4

It's public record that I voted to reopen that question once, but I don't see any pressing need for it to be opened again in its current state. I've since learned (from the answers!) that it is missing information about how the case was ultimately resolved, which seems very relevant to SE, and it always overemphasized the neopronoun aspect. I think the question has largely served its purpose.

| improve this answer | |
3

I think we should be careful about the precedents that are implicitly asked to be put in place here.

The job of moderators is to support the community by doing that moderation work. They are the ones who have to make the tough decisions, always balancing whether their actions will further escalate crazily spinning discussions, or help people to calm down.

Now: that locked question, is disputed. I found that question to be excellent food for thought, therefore I wrote an answer there; and therefore I voted to re-open when it was closed at some point.

But a number of community members takes a different stance!

That doesn't mean that one of the two sides is "wrong". But it is obvious that there isn't a clear consensus whether "should be open" or "should be closed". This "forth and back" between open, closed, re-opened, re-closed, ... that is not beneficial at this point in time. Every time the "other team" scores a "win", that creates frustration. It fosters an "us versus them" mentality, right within the community.

Therefore: when the team of moderators makes that tough call of locking the question, why not trust them, at least for now?

I agree that asking for a more precise explanation, and the resulting to "it is locked temporarily, to allow people to calm down" is helpful.

But, coming back to my first statement: consider the consequences of the request to unlock. Some 60 upvotes, some 20 down on this question, right now, when I put down this answer.

What if a moderator decides "ok, that is enough consensus to unlock quickly". But then, later this weekend, that picture turns around? Should they then lock again?

Long story short: I think the community should be very careful about twisting the arms of our moderators by pulling up "polls" to assess the quality of their decisions. To politely force them to reverse their decisions.

| improve this answer | |
  • 12
    The question is "highly disputed" as the result of the mods' actions The reopened question, Nov 19, 11:29 was closed single-handedly by a mod at 12:41. The second time it was reopened at 14.25 (Nov 20) it was closed by a different mod at 14.28. The 3rd time it was reopened at 16.08 it was closed by the community for the 2nd time at 05.01 and locked at 22.44 by a mod. If the community had been left alone to moderate themselves, it would have been far much better. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 13:00
  • Furthermore, the aim of my question is not to twist the arms of the mods, it is asking for clarification, which I believe is on scope for Meta. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 13:00
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA Yet your question title is a direct call to action about unlocking the other question. If your primary priority is to ask for "why was it locked", then the question title does not reflect that. At all. – GhostCat Nov 22 '19 at 13:16
  • 1
    "In my opinion, the post should be reopened but first it must be unlocked. I would appreciate hearing what other users think." The last part is asking for clarification and also here: “Those three reopen votes have since disappeared, and I do not understand why. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 13:19
  • 2
    This is the conversation the moderator requested, so it's hard to say that it's going against them. – Stop Harming the Community Nov 22 '19 at 14:58
  • @Mari-LouA Your comment doesn't change the fact that the title of your question doesn't align with the purpose you state. Why defend that mismatch, instead of simply rewording the title of the question? Beyond that, my answer already acknowledged that I agree with asking for clarification. My main point is: to be careful about the part that requests specific actions from the moderators. – GhostCat Nov 22 '19 at 15:40
  • No DV on my part. – Mari-Lou A Nov 22 '19 at 17:03
  • @Mari-LouA Thanks for that information, but even if you did, I would consider that fully okay. We obviously disagree here. And albeit I sometimes express frustration over (unexplained) downvotes, I fully understand that some of my content is pretty polarizing. But our purpose here isn't to accommodate everyone anyway. So, some vote up, some down, thats the game. – GhostCat Nov 22 '19 at 17:55
  • 6
    I’m sorry, but moderators unilaterally closing it twice and then claiming there’s enough controversy that it requires a lock isn’t exactly equivalent to the community having a problem deciding what to do with it. It seems more like some of the community disagrees with the moderators’ view. Which is fine; not everything that is popular is good for the site. Let’s just not pretend that the moderators were somehow uninvolved in making it a “highly disputed” question. – ColleenV Nov 22 '19 at 19:23
-17

The question does not seem "primarily opinion based", but it seems "off topic" to me.

There are definitely some hard facts you can take from the two events and draw similarities between them.

However, I think it is off-topic because discussion like this threatens the platform, and so it has to be categorized as off-topic because we can't discuss that topic here.

Keep in mind that a good number of the would-be participants in this type of discussion are forbidden from speaking about it. So essentially all this type of post does is beat up on some people that have their hands tied.

The result is (see the vote count on this post) the usual: a one-sided, overdriven, mob-style championing of "MONICA". Monica is not a person anymore, she is a god. Her cause is a religion that gets blind adherence and unobjective support. Criticising Monica is apostasy and is threatened with punishments of extreme downvoting and highly upvoted comments that vapidly counter your post.

People have to keep in mind that you're destroying your own platform that you're trying to defend when you do this because the discussion tends to become one-sided criticism of a group that is not allowed to defend themselves.

| improve this answer | |
  • 15
    I hope you understand the irony in your last sentence. I really do. – Frédéric Hamidi Nov 22 '19 at 14:09
  • 2
    @FrédéricHamidi I don't think it does. There isn't enough criticism of the mob-behaviour that is emerging - the logos like the Reinstate monica picture with the handshake just look like propaganda images to me -- – bobobobo Nov 22 '19 at 14:15
  • 3
    Never has the tension between upvote for interesting content and downvote for disagreement been so strong for me. – Stop Harming the Community Nov 22 '19 at 14:55
  • @rockwalrus-stopharmingMonica Perhaps you agree with some of the apparent literal content – bobobobo Nov 22 '19 at 15:11
  • 5
    re: "unobjective support", I've seen "ReinstateMonica" profiles as both close voters and reopen voters on many related posts. Just look at the edit history of the post in question. I don't think your claim reflects reality. – user245382 Nov 22 '19 at 17:07
  • 12
    Discussing what's going on with the platform is not what's threatening the platform. Neither are coordinated avatars and user names; they're probably mostly ineffectual. SE has done what seems to be a very misguided thing and then broken every promise made to the moderator in question and the community in the aftermath; that is threatening the platform. No one is seeing Monica as a goddess, what a ridiculous idea. She is an individual who has been treated very unfairly. We care because a) that's wrong and b) it was done by people we used to trust and c) it could really have been any of us. – Pekka Nov 22 '19 at 17:27
  • 1
    Could you elaborate on "Keep in mind that a good number of the would-be participants in this type of discussion are forbidden from speaking about it."? – DK Bose Nov 22 '19 at 17:32
  • 4
    So essentially all this type of post does is beat up on some people that have their hands tied. what a load of nonsense. They haven't said anything since this whole thing started and that led to the legal action in the first place that now is supposedly keeping them from talking about it. The company's higher-ups could have chosen to be truly transparent about this at any time. (I agree beating anyone further down the chain is not right because they did not have that choice.) – Pekka Nov 22 '19 at 17:41
  • 11
    'So essentially all this type of post does is beat up on some people that have their hands tied.' - Let me know when I should start playing the worlds smallest violin for the folks that shot themselves in the foot and then doubled down and did the same thing to their other foot through their responses and inaction to Monica's situation. You've simply attacked and vilified the opposition and your answer is terrible and I really wonder on what grounds the three people that up-voted it did so. If you can't see how SE's treatment of Monica was wrong then there is no hope for you. – Script47 Nov 22 '19 at 18:00
  • 1
    @Script47 The way I read this answer is not about "if you can't see how SE's treatment of Monica was wrong" but about how anyone criticizing Monica gets pushed back hard. This would be a fair point if the author could show some evidence of it. – dfhwze Nov 30 '19 at 12:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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